ef 70-200 2.8 L IS mk II vs mk III

[jacekkoperkiewicz]

Hi all
I am thinking to buy ef 70-200 2.8 L IS, but I am not sure which one - mkII or mkIII. I will buy used but different in price is still huge. I will use this lens on street for fashion and also in studio. On YouTube I saw below video, about glass which was used in mk III and I am impress with this feature - please see attached. Shooting against light source you can still catch subject. Is it true? Can anyone who know both lenses help me, please? Is it useful and worth another 500 pounds? This what I am talking about is in 1 min 10 sec in below video.

Thank you and have a lovely day
Jacek

 

[Knowbody]

The III is not worth the extra cost. The only difference is the coating, and it apparently has a slightly different shade of white paint.

 

[AlanF]

Hi all
I am thinking to buy ef 70-200 2.8 L IS, but I am not sure which one - mkII or mkIII. I will buy used but different in price is still huge. I will use this lens on street for fashion and also in studio. On YouTube I saw below video, about glass which was used in mk III and I am impress with this feature - please see attached. Shooting against light source you can still catch subject. Is it true? Can anyone who know both lenses help me, please? Is it useful and worth another 500 pounds? This what I am talking about is in 1 min 10 sec in below video.

Thank you and have a lovely day
Jacek

Don't be surprised if we do not want to watch one of their YouTubes!

 

[Del Paso]

Hi all
I am thinking to buy ef 70-200 2.8 L IS, but I am not sure which one - mkII or mkIII. I will buy used but different in price is still huge. I will use this lens on street for fashion and also in studio. On YouTube I saw below video, about glass which was used in mk III and I am impress with this feature - please see attached. Shooting against light source you can still catch subject. Is it true? Can anyone who know both lenses help me, please? Is it useful and worth another 500 pounds? This what I am talking about is in 1 min 10 sec in below video.

Thank you and have a lovely day
Jacek

I'd rather suggest you take a look at some REAL review, like on "The Digital Picture" or "OpticalLimits" if you want reliable information.
Tony and Chelsea are entertainment...

 

[unfocused]

I owned both, (now have the RF version). If the lenses are in the same condition it is not worth 500 pounds for the difference. But, remember that the II version is older. Since these lenses are often a staple of working pros the wear and tear on the II could be much greater. The reason I bought the III was because my II was getting long in the tooth and I figured it was time to replace it with a newer lens. So, if they are in identical condition the III is not worth the extra 500 pounds. Just be sure whichever one you buy is in good condition. And yes, I agree. Actually read a review instead of watching those two.

 

[Sporgon]

The III is not worth the extra cost. The only difference is the coating, and it apparently has a slightly different shade of white paint.

I'm not sure that you are right in what you have stated; do a search for Lens Rentals 'How accurate is AF' from around late 2012 and you will see that they test various Canon lenses for AF accuracy and precision and conclude that lenses produced from 2012 on Canon introduced a 'closed loop' focusing system where the lens is communicating with the camera body, assuming a body from 2012 onwards. This resulted in much improved AF consistency in terms of both accuracy and precision. The exception to this was the 70-300L, which despite being a late 2010 lens appeared to have the same AF feedback and therefore consistency. However, relevant to this thread, the 70-200/2.8 L II, and early 2010 lens, did not.

If Lens Rentals conclusions are correct then the mark III version of the 70-200/2.8 IS will have this AF improvement, which is perhaps why T&C found the images made through this lens to be sharper. (Yes I had to watch the video in case they had mentioned the AF, thanks for that ).

It is an improvement that never seemed to garner any publicity, probably because Canon didn't want to state 'we've made our AF work properly now', but from personal experience, since I have gradually re-equipped with Canon lenses made from 2012 onwards my AF as got much better, to the point where I don't really feel the need for mirrorless's improved AF. As mentioned before, the exception is the 70-300L which gives the same post 2012 AF accuracy and precision, and I have always found this to be a very reliable lens.

So in recent years when Canon have introduced an EF lens that on the face of it appears to be the same as the previous version, I bet the AF is improved. Certainly if I was in the market for a 70-200/2.8 IS I would stump up the money for the mark III version.

 

[koenkooi]

I'm not sure that you are right in what you have stated; do a search for Lens Rentals 'How accurate is AF' from around late 2012 and you will see that they test various Canon lenses for AF accuracy and precision and conclude that lenses produced from 2012 on Canon introduced a 'closed loop' focusing system where the lens is communicating with the camera body, assuming a body from 2012 onwards. This resulted in much improved AF consistency in terms of both accuracy and precision.[..]

2012 is also the year Canon started introducing lenses with user upgradable firmware which also helps with making AF better over time.

Sadly DPAF is open-loop, as evidenced by the RF70-200 F/2.8L focussing issues and firmware fix. It would be nice to have an option to have the camera use CDAF at the very end to fine tune the focus, it would fix a number of issues, including the 'dodgy UV filter' issue.

 

[jacekkoperkiewicz]

Hi all
Thank you for your comments. Yes, I am using The Digital Picture always as first. I was interested if this coating really do this job as they mention. Thank you