Canon 70-200 f2.8 L / IS I/II

gibtheo

gibtheo

Messages
459
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Anybody used the older non IS version then upgraded to the IS I/II version? Is there a noticeable improvement for sports work? Ie locking focus onto things more quickly?

I know general advice is not to use IS, that's irrelevant, I just mean is the lens much faster? Should I sell my old version and buy a newer one? I just sometimes find that it is slow to grab focus, sometimes at crucial times! I wonder how much is user, how much is body and how much is lens. Having not used the newer versions I'm hoping that it's lens!

Cheers
 
gibtheo said:
Anybody used the older non IS version then upgraded to the IS I/II version? Is there a noticeable improvement for sports work? Ie locking focus onto things more quickly?

I know general advice is not to use IS, that's irrelevant, I just mean is the lens much faster? Should I sell my old version and buy a newer one? I just sometimes find that it is slow to grab focus, sometimes at crucial times! I wonder how much is user, how much is body and how much is lens. Having not used the newer versions I'm hoping that it's lens!

Cheers
Click to expand...


the 70-200 mk 1 i tried two of them and wasnt all that impressed ..especialy at night matches.. mostly on quality....so used the 135m f2 for ages..fantastic lens..... i finally took the plunge and tried the 70-200 mk ii... OMG! what a lens.. its fantastic

the only advice you need is.. are you very happy wiht the lens you ahve? if not then you will be with the mkII for sure.. only you can decide if the cost equals what you will get out of it.. nobody here knows how well the one you ahve performs for you..

personally i would advise get the mkII ....
 
I concur. The mk2 is like a different lens. Far faster to acquire, more reliable lock on. I always struggled with my Mk1 and often missed important shots with it. The mk2 is rock solid.
 
I've owned both. I had the MkII and now own the MkI, and don't see what the problem is. The Mk1 performs perfectly well in comparison. If you can get a mkII used then fire away but I wouldn't buy a new one over the Mk1. Too big a gap price wise with no real gain IMO.
 
Sporty_Tog said:
I've owned both. I had the MkII and now own the MkI, and don't see what the problem is. The Mk1 performs perfectly well in comparison. If you can get a mkII used then fire away but I wouldn't buy a new one over the Mk1. Too big a gap price wise with no real gain IMO.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the IS mk1 and mk2 or the older non IS? Are you saying there's not much difference between the IS mk1 and 2?
 
Yes the Mk1 IS. That's what I have now, and looking back on the pics I took with the MkII and comparing them I don't really see why I needed the MkII. Everyone else might be different. I just felt that money could be used elsewhere.
 
If you take a picture of a plant pot on a loverly day with both lens I am guessing not too much difference... anything else.. worlds apart :)
 
Each to their own I guess :)

I just know what worked for me. Less money going out with the hope of some coming in. When I have more coming in than going out, I'll re-address it. Buying expensive gear in the hope that you're going to get the money coming in, is bad business. Especially since the person reading the paper at the other end has no idea what lens was used, nor does the person that picked the shot.
 
I've used both - the MkI IS was ok, but not great wide open especially at the long end. The MKII is crystal clear - prime sharp even.
 
WOW. I bought a mk2. Bloody hell, it's a different lens to the non IS. It's lightening fast in comparison, I don't think I'd have got this without it...

Apologies for the watermark but these are for sale.

View attachment 34860
For anyone interested, this is Daniel Ogden of Wynnum Manly Seagulls (in Brisbane) going over to score his 100th career try.
 
gibtheo said:
Apologies for the watermark but these are for sale.
Click to expand...

kinda useless watermark then... thats a watermark that shows who took it.. does absoloutly nothing to protect the picture..
 
KIPAX said:
kinda useless watermark then... thats a watermark that shows who took it.. does absoloutly nothing to protect the picture..
Click to expand...

Yea, my feelings are that it's pretty safe on here with that style watermark. On the off chance that someone does nick it off here they'd have a 700px wide image with my name on it. Fairly useless I reckon. The ones on my site that I advertise have a much more safe watermark.

I suppose I could have put it up with no watermark, though I'm in the habit of sticking my name on anything that I put in a public forum.
 
Yea, but you see I'm kind of hoping that any of you guys on here don't want to nick my photo. Maybe my trust is misplaced!!!

If I really wanted to I could clone out 90% of watermarks that I see, it's not really difficult, the hope is that anyone with the ability to do that, actually wouldn't do it or want to! Maybe we should start another thread about watermarks! haha. :p

I shouldn't have apologised for the watermark should I?! haha
 
Last edited:
Sporty_Tog said:
I've owned both. I had the MkII and now own the MkI, and don't see what the problem is. The Mk1 performs perfectly well in comparison. If you can get a mkII used then fire away but I wouldn't buy a new one over the Mk1. Too big a gap price wise with no real gain IMO.
Click to expand...

Your Mk2 must have been broken - I've owned both and the Mk2 is in a totally different league. The Mk1 was horribly soft at the long end wide open, so much so that, after "upgrading" from my f/4L IS, I sold it and bought my old f/4 lens back again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top