Have the money to get the 24-70 2.8 II to pair with my 1Dx. It seems like a no brainer to me. I'll be using for event photography, portraits and will be getting into weddings. That said I'd really like to have a 70-200 as I love that range and use it often whether for surf photography or something else. Given the ISO performance on the 1Dx do I need IS (I really don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II but may be able to swing the ver I)? Could I even go to f4 with good results or will I be spoiled by the sharpness of the 24-70?
Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well
- Thread starter surfer57
- Start date
- Status
I shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and f/4L IS on a 5D3 and nowadays I hardly use the f/2.8 version unless I'm shooting indoors. The f/4 is just so much easier to carry around for everyday use and it seems equally sharp in my experience. As for IS, I generally find it useful on 100mm+ focal lengths but usually not so much on anything shorter. I tend to shoot outdoors though.
The ISO 12233 charts on the-digital-picture.com under each lens review are a good place to compare how sharp all of the 70-200 lenses are at varying apertures and focal lengths. They also recently posted the 24-70 II so you could compare against that.
The ISO 12233 charts on the-digital-picture.com under each lens review are a good place to compare how sharp all of the 70-200 lenses are at varying apertures and focal lengths. They also recently posted the 24-70 II so you could compare against that.
Upvote
0
If you're at all worried about perfection (your choice of 1D X and 24-70 II indicate you are), you will not be happy with the performance of the original 70-200/2.8 IS at anything brighter than f4. So why have the mk I when the f4 IS version can do everything that lens can do well while being cheaper, smaller, lighter, and optically better? Also, when shooting Tv the lens can't open up to apertures with sub par performance.
Having said that, the 70-200 II really is something else, and that is the one you'll be thinking of should you settle for anything less. You chose f2.8 for the normal zoom to stop action, so why not get the same for you tele zoom?
Having said that, the 70-200 II really is something else, and that is the one you'll be thinking of should you settle for anything less. You chose f2.8 for the normal zoom to stop action, so why not get the same for you tele zoom?
Upvote
0
As good as the 24-70II is the 70-200II is even better, and IMHO noticeably better than the 70-200 F4 IS. With the 24-70II and the 70-200II you are future-proofing your investment if you ever decide to upgrade to a future 36MP+ body (and it will come eventually) where to 70-200 F4 just won't cut it.
I base my observation on my 7D which has about a 46MP FF pixel density and the difference between the 24-70I and the 24-70II as well as the 70-200II vs the 70-200 F4 is clear as day.
I base my observation on my 7D which has about a 46MP FF pixel density and the difference between the 24-70I and the 24-70II as well as the 70-200II vs the 70-200 F4 is clear as day.
Upvote
0
If you're comfortable with the f/2.8 (IS I even) then you should just go for it. But I use the f/4 IS because of how lightweight it is and the fact it still offers beautiful optics. I wouldn't mind an upgrade on them though but it's still a great lens. Of course it doesn't beat the f/2.8 IS II though. Right now I'm using the 5D mark III with a 24-70 II and 70-200 f/4 IS and I find myself reaching for the 24-70 II more often anyway.
Upvote
0
vuilang said:
What does this have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to consider my money issues. I have the 1Dx because I worked hard to save up for it and wanted the speed when shooting surfing which is primarily what I do. I now have once again saved up a bit more money so would like to add to my gear. I'll just add the 24-70 for now as I'd really like to have a good normal zoom in the bag.
Upvote
0
Shooting surfing with the 70-200 do you find yourself wanting a teleconverter or do you have some other longer glass? If you want a teleconverter then I'd definitely wait till I could afford the IS ii. Most (all) surfing shots will be done in relatively decent light so I don't think you'd be at all disappointed in a 70-200 f4IS for surfing for events its also not bad just cant be afraid to crank the iso or bring a speedlight. My copy is bonkers wide open and even though I would love the IS ii I just can't see how it's going to be twice as good (by price) especially for my needs. Personally I'd rather spend the cash on a 300 or 400mm prime than upgrade my 70-200.
Upvote
0
I agree with iso79. If you really can't afford the MkII, then get the f:2.8 non-IS version, as you won't be happy with MkI. I've had all three and there's a noticeable difference in IQ between the IS models. The non-IS, though an older design by several years, falls somewhere in between.
Upvote
0
iso79 said:
That's just plain wrong. I have had every version and can state categorically that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is far sharper than the non-IS version. Not even close.
This can also be verified at the Digital Picture.....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
One thing. If you plan on using the 70-200 for surfing you will be very disappointed. I can only assume you have a 300 or 400 and a 1.4 or 2.0 TC. Even @ 200 in most conditions you would have to be right on the waters edge and having to crop a lot.
Like everyone else has stated: The MkII is very very sharp and having just AMFA/Aperture sharpness tested both my MkI/II I can see a very noticeable difference paired to all 3 of my bodies between the two versions of the lens. I have kept my MK I as a backup since it is still a very good lens, but if quality is important (and it seems to be for you) get the MK II.
Like everyone else has stated: The MkII is very very sharp and having just AMFA/Aperture sharpness tested both my MkI/II I can see a very noticeable difference paired to all 3 of my bodies between the two versions of the lens. I have kept my MK I as a backup since it is still a very good lens, but if quality is important (and it seems to be for you) get the MK II.
Upvote
0
Aye aye on that I'm not taking anything away from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS or Non Is both great lenses but you will need the reach of at least 300mm. I have both 70-200 2.8 Non Is and 100-400mm 4.5-5.6. I find myself using the latter for the water sports.brad-man said:
Upvote
0
A
AdamJ
Guest
I use both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200mm f/4 IS. You won't be disappointed with the optics of either. I find it practically impossible to discern any IQ difference in the copies I have.
The f/2.8 II is more practical if you intend using teleconverters. On the other hand, I would consider the f/4 IS as a lightweight lens whereas the f/2.8 IS II is in the heavyweight class. If I were heading for a beach, I would definitely be packing the f/4 IS.
If I had to choose one, I'd have the f/2.8 II but only because of its versatility, not for any IQ reasons.
The f/2.8 II is more practical if you intend using teleconverters. On the other hand, I would consider the f/4 IS as a lightweight lens whereas the f/2.8 IS II is in the heavyweight class. If I were heading for a beach, I would definitely be packing the f/4 IS.
If I had to choose one, I'd have the f/2.8 II but only because of its versatility, not for any IQ reasons.
Upvote
0
I agree on the focal length front. 300 or 400mm reach is the starting point. I'd suggest 70-200 mkii + a teleconverter, or a 70-300L, 100-400, or a 300/400 prime, or a combination of any of these with a 7d/1d4. Depending on the spot, even 300mm is pretty short. I shoot surfing with a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x on a 5d3 and am anxiously awaiting a new 7d2 so that i can get that extra reach back (and FPS).
Upvote
0
if there is no more money for the 70-200 II, i would buy the tamron 24-70 (with vibration control!) instead of the canon 24-70 II. the tamron costs only half the price and is a very good performer. and then some money should be left over for the 70-200 II 
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
