Lens advice please, EF 70-200 IS I or II?

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
Need advice please.
As an amateur is it worth spending the extra money on the 70-200 f2.8 IS II for the improvements over the MK I version.

Who knew wish lists worked, but she just asked me about the lenses I put on it!

Cheers Graham.

 

[Loswr]

The 70-200 II is optically better. In particular, if you plan to use extenders the MkII is a better choice.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Neuro.
Many thanks, this is exactly the info I needed as I am thinking of getting an extender in the future (saving birthday money!) so that I am not fighting with my Sigma 150-500 to get images. ;D

Cheers Graham.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have the MkI and occasionally use the 1.4 TC MkIII on it, I have always been disappointed with the 2XTC MkII on it. I have no plans to upgrade mine as it is a very good lens but if I was buying new today with the long term in mind I'd get a MkII, and as Neuro says, if you are looking to use TC's regularly (especially the 2xTC) then the MkII is definitely the better lens.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi privatebydesign.
Thanks, I think I might be in line for a MKII for my birthday, here's hoping.

Cheers Graham.

I have the MkI and occasionally use the 1.4 TC MkIII on it, I have always been disappointed with the 2XTC MkII on it. I have no plans to upgrade mine as it is a very good lens but if I was buying new today with the long term in mind I'd get a MkII, and as Neuro says, if you are looking to use TC's regularly (especially the 2xTC) then the MkII is definitely the better lens.

 

[jdramirez]

I never touched an mki, but I would lean towards yes. I had the f2.8L usm and I was quite fond of it, but the mkii gives me the confidence that any flawed image is my own Damn fault and I can't blame it on the gear.

 

[Don Haines]

Hi Neuro.
Many thanks, this is exactly the info I needed as I am thinking of getting an extender in the future (saving birthday money!) so that I am not fighting with my Sigma 150-500 to get images. ;D

Cheers Graham.

The 70-200 will resolve more distant detail than your 150-500... It really is that much better! And with a teleconverter it gets even better....

By the way, if you are using a crop camera, don't bother with the 2X converter....

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Don.
What is the reasoning with not bothering with the 2X converter on a crop body, a 1.4X would only give me 448mm equivalent, a 2X would still only give me 640mm equivalent, whereas I am already used to running out of zoom at 800mm equivalent.
If for some reason it would degrade the image below the quality of the Sigma then it would be a waste, if it is only (only ha) for the 2 stops of light lost with a 2X converter, that would make it the same as the Sigma at 150mm and a whole 1/3rd of a stop better at full reach all be it less reach than the Sigma!
What I'm trying to say is that I'd love the extra reach but I'm open to reasoning on why not to?
Here I am debating something that could be months away! : Aaah the planing stage!

Cheers Graham

 

[jdramirez]

I broached the idea of getting the 200-400 f/4L 1.x to the wife today... and I explained it would be a few years before I could save up enough to get it... and she FREAKED! Evidently she tolerates the 70-200 mkii, the 5d mkiii, and the rest... but breaking 5 digits is where she flips!.

So... this 'she' of which you speak... does she know how much the lens is? I'd guess yes... and it is possible her tolerance is much like the wife's... but I'd double check before it becomes a whole thing.

And now that I'm forbidden from getting the 200-400... I think I'll get it.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi JD.
Yes she knows how much, she may even have purchased it now!
If by becomes a whole thing, you mean marriage, we've been engaged for 25 years! We almost don't have a mortgage.
So I think we are a whole, everyone says she is a keeper, and I don't feel like I am serving a sentence!

Cheers Graham.

I broached the idea of getting the 200-400 f/4L 1.x to the wife today... and I explained it would be a few years before I could save up enough to get it... and she FREAKED! Evidently she tolerates the 70-200 mkii, the 5d mkiii, and the rest... but breaking 5 digits is where she flips!.

So... this 'she' of which you speak... does she know how much the lens is? I'd guess yes... and it is possible her tolerance is much like the wife's... but I'd double check before it becomes a whole thing.

And now that I'm forbidden from getting the 200-400... I think I'll get it.

 

[Don Haines]

Hi Don.
What is the reasoning with not bothering with the 2X converter on a crop body, a 1.4X would only give me 448mm equivalent, a 2X would still only give me 640mm equivalent, whereas I am already used to running out of zoom at 800mm equivalent.
If for some reason it would degrade the image below the quality of the Sigma then it would be a waste, if it is only (only ha) for the 2 stops of light lost with a 2X converter, that would make it the same as the Sigma at 150mm and a whole 1/3rd of a stop better at full reach all be it less reach than the Sigma!
What I'm trying to say is that I'd love the extra reach but I'm open to reasoning on why not to?
Here I am debating something that could be months away! : Aaah the planing stage!

Cheers Graham

I tried an experiment where I placed a target 25 feet away and took pictures with the 70-200, with the 1.4X, and with the 2X on a 60D and a 5D2 and then pixel peeped to see how much detail I could see in the final image. On the 5D2 the most detail was with the 2X, then the 1.4X, and then the bare lens. On the 60D the most detail was with the 1.4X, the the 2X, then the bare lens.

A crop camera, with the smaller pixel size, is more sensitive to lens resolution than a FF camera. Adding in a teleconverter adds in distortion, and with crop cameras teleconverters do not work well unless you have a very sharp lens.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Don.
Thanks for that.
I will have to see if I can try both before I commit to buying one based on this information, you may have saved me from making a mistake.

Cheers Graham.

Hi Don.
What is the reasoning with not bothering with the 2X converter on a crop body, a 1.4X would only give me 448mm equivalent, a 2X would still only give me 640mm equivalent, whereas I am already used to running out of zoom at 800mm equivalent.
If for some reason it would degrade the image below the quality of the Sigma then it would be a waste, if it is only (only ha) for the 2 stops of light lost with a 2X converter, that would make it the same as the Sigma at 150mm and a whole 1/3rd of a stop better at full reach all be it less reach than the Sigma!
What I'm trying to say is that I'd love the extra reach but I'm open to reasoning on why not to?
Here I am debating something that could be months away! : Aaah the planing stage!

Cheers Graham

I tried an experiment where I placed a target 25 feet away and took pictures with the 70-200, with the 1.4X, and with the 2X on a 60D and a 5D2 and then pixel peeped to see how much detail I could see in the final image. On the 5D2 the most detail was with the 2X, then the 1.4X, and then the bare lens. On the 60D the most detail was with the 1.4X, the the 2X, then the bare lens.

A crop camera, with the smaller pixel size, is more sensitive to lens resolution than a FF camera. Adding in a teleconverter adds in distortion, and with crop cameras teleconverters do not work well unless you have a very sharp lens.