Anyone using the 70-200/2.8 II for Sports

Messages
4,225
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
If I just wondered what your thoughts were?

Looking to get a 70-200/2.8 and I'm weighing up a 2nd hand MK I or new Mk II now that the prices have dropped.

I think they were about £2499 when released but are now £1699.

I'm waiting on a new price list from Kerso as well.

Other uses will be normal photos of the kids and maybe some indoor plays.
 
I use a Mk1, excellent as it's very good in low light. Also ideal for out in the park use. Would be my first choice lens if I was buying again.

They are quite heavy, espicially with IS.
 
You dont need the IS for sports so why pay for it, save yourself well over 1k and get a MKI non IS for about £600
 
You dont need the IS for sports so why pay for it, save yourself well over 1k and get a MKI non IS for about £600

:agree:

Get the mkI non-IS f/2.8 version. Best of the bunch.

£898 from WEx according to Camerapricebuster.
 
You dont need the IS for sports so why pay for it, save yourself well over 1k and get a MKI non IS for about £600


swapped mine for the 135mm prime... soo glad i did :)
 
I bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS , as it depends what you are going to use it for. For sports, generally you have a high enough shutter speed that it's not needed but it's handy for crowd shots, shots of the managers etc.

You can switch to mode 2 for panning, as I also use it for motorsports, plus I have it available for other uses, not just sports, as well.

It's a lot of money over the non IS, but I can turn it off if I need to. I can't turn it on on a non IS lens.

Oh and it uses more battery power as well.
 
You dont need the IS for sports so why pay for it, save yourself well over 1k and get a MKI non IS for about £600

Not true. I've used my IS quite a bit for sports stuff.

Manager shots, set pieces at football whilst it's been minus 6, it was turned on for a whole week at the snooker..
 
I wouldn't just use it for sports that's why I want the IS model.

I know there have been loads of reviews of the MK II vs the MK I.

I wondered if anyone here had a MK II and used it for sports and what they thought of it.
 
I haven't used it myself but was speaking to one of the AI togs at Spurs a couple of weeks ago and he said that a they had bought a few of them and that the togs using them thought they were superb and had a noticeable improvement on the MK1.
 
I haven't used it myself but was speaking to one of the AI togs at Spurs a couple of weeks ago and he said that a they had bought a few of them and that the togs using them thought they were superb and had a noticeable improvement on the MK1.

John S?

He noticed I was using the 135L as my short lens and was asking about it...he did say the mkII was a big improvement though. I guess if you're set on the IS version then the mkII is the way to go.

I love my 135 though, plus it takes the 1.4x converter too so I have a 200 f/2.8 as well. (y)
 
Yes it was John S.

He was using the 135L when i spoke to him. Said the only down side was missing some decent cele's as arms would get cut off etc because of the fixed distance.
 
Yes it was John S.

He was using the 135L when i spoke to him. Said the only down side was missing some decent cele's as arms would get cut off etc because of the fixed distance.

Haha...good to see my influence may have worked there!

It's tricky sometimes, and WHL is particularly close to the pitch so cele's will occasionally be trimmed by the 135. Other grounds with lots of room it's brilliant...
 
I was talking to an extremely experienced pro last Saturday about his 70-200 mk II and he was raving about it. He said it was much better than the mk I.

I use the mk I which I find excellent but it is slower to grab focus that the mk II (which I tried in a shop the other week) which snaps to focus very fast indeed.
 
What are the differences between the mk1 and mk2? and how can you tell externally?

Does this just apply to the IS models?
 
Back
Top