Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKI to MKII

C

Calzor Suzay

Messages
432
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone made the switch and is it *that* much better?

Had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKI for a while and hired the 100-400 a few times to border on buying it then I read the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII with a 2x converter is on par with 100-400.

It's cheaper to buy the 100-400 but obviously another heavy lump of glass to cart about for a bit more I could sell my current MKI buy the MKII then the 2x TC at a later date but is it worth the extra money?

If I'm using the 70-200 I tend to have it wide open at f/2.8 and the MKII is supposedly noticeably better, is it?
 
I moved up recently and the real change for me was at 200mm and wide open. Improvements were there at shorter focal lengths and when closed down a bit but the mkII was way better at the long end wide open. (I didn't try it with a t/c though)

Having said that, mine is going up for sale later this week (probably) as I haven't used it since I got it.

Kipax (usually seen in the sports section bought my 2x t/c to use with his mkII and was very happy last I heard - drop him a pm.
 
Probably like many here I have had all of the above lens combinations and on migrating back to Canon (from Sony) the 70-200II was the first lens I repurchased (I previously owned a mk I and two mkIIs). The 70-200II IS that much better than the mkI wide open at both wide and long ends and I would guestimate that you need to stop the mkI down by 2/3 of a stop to get equivalent sharpness. This is a very semi-empirical measure I might add as I do not have the comparative images with me at the moment but I did do a lot of side-by-side testing at the time.

I did find the 70-200II worked best with the mkIII Tcs though. Other brands (eg Kenko) did not always AF very accurately.

My advice is to go for the 70-200mkII if you want possibly the best 70f2.8, 100f2.8, 135f2.8 and 200f2.8 all rolled into one body.

Personally, I'd wait to see how much Ian wanted for a decent (?) used copy. The new price is quite steep.

Just my £0.02.
 
Thanks, your kind of both confirming what I've read in most cases of comparison talk I've found.

A well looked after 2nd hand copy would obviously keep costs down and I've been watching eBay and looking into Kerso etc prices :)
 
Hi Steve

Given the cost of such a complex optoelectronic bit of gadgetry I would personally avoid ebay and purchase here on the forum from a known entity.

Panamoz are doing these lenses cheap at the moment as well and Kerso is always a great source of gear. I would try all of the above before ebay.

Good luck with your searches.

Gary
 
It was more for gauging prices than buying, If I go down this route my MkI will be up for sale as well :) I've considered eBay but you get stung for so much in costs after the event with a high price tag.
 
I went from a prime 135mm f2 lens to the 70-200mkII

I love my primes and the 135mm is a peach.. I still ahve it and would never sell... however its there as a backup collecting dust because as good as it is.. its no longer needed ...the 70-200 mkII is perfect for me... its pin sharp at f2.8 and I use it extensively.. ouit doors.. under floodlights and a lot of indoor work..


I have a 1.4 mkIII tc and it works perfectly with my combo.. obviously now at f4 .. not as fast and perfect as the lens on its own.. but most people cant tell.. i use my kit so much under extreme circumstances i can see a slight slow down in af. I will happy do a small sided (small pitch) junior football game with 70-200 and the 1.4 .... a paid job where i must get the good shots.. deffo use that combo as its perfect for small pitches

I have the x2 converter mkII ..(cheers ian) .now at f5.6 .. gives me 400mm Its a lot harder to hand hold and i took my tripoid collor off the 70-2000 the day I got it.. i rarely use the x2 so cant comment as much.. but when I did for cricket.. perfectly usable pics and i would have sent them in to the paper.. not as good as the 400 prime obviously.. but perfectly usable..

all in all i havent a single complaint (apart from screws come loose as they do with a few canon white lens for some reason) I certainly dont have any lens i would swap it for...off to do a day job now and its going to be in use all day... i know its goin g to do a good job :)

sorry got to ruch out for day now :)
 
KIPAX said:
I went from a prime 135mm f2 lens to the 70-200mkII

I love my primes and the 135mm is a peach.. I still ahve it and would never sell... however its there as a backup collecting dust because as good as it is.. its no longer needed ...the 70-200 mkII is perfect for me... its pin sharp at f2.8 and I use it extensively.. ouit doors.. under floodlights and a lot of indoor work..


I have a 1.4 mkIII tc and it works perfectly with my combo.. obviously now at f4 .. not as fast and perfect as the lens on its own.. but most people cant tell.. i use my kit so much under extreme circumstances i can see a slight slow down in af. I will happy do a small sided (small pitch) junior football game with 70-200 and the 1.4 .... a paid job where i must get the good shots.. deffo use that combo as its perfect for small pitches

I have the x2 converter mkII ..(cheers ian) .now at f5.6 .. gives me 400mm Its a lot harder to hand hold and i took my tripoid collor off the 70-2000 the day I got it.. i rarely use the x2 so cant comment as much.. but when I did for cricket.. perfectly usable pics and i would have sent them in to the paper.. not as good as the 400 prime obviously.. but perfectly usable..

all in all i havent a single complaint (apart from screws come loose as they do with a few canon white lens for some reason) I certainly dont have any lens i would swap it for...off to do a day job now and its going to be in use all day... i know its goin g to do a good job :)

sorry got to ruch out for day now :)
Click to expand...

What screws? Will be helpful for me to know, so I can tighten them now and again. thanks.
 
edz said:
What screws? Will be helpful for me to know, so I can tighten them now and again. thanks.
Click to expand...

Beware, the screws need a special slotted scredriver, can't remember the name of it.
 
I recently got a MkII to replace my MkI and until I actually tried it I'd taken all the reviews from people on here with a pinch of salt, I just couldn't believe there could be that much difference. Now I've got it I find I'd been completely wrong, the lens is absolutely fantastic and the reviews were completely true.

I got mine from Panamoz and it was £1361 delivered via bank transfer and it's since been reduced even more. A few weeks after I got a 2x MkIII converter for it and they go together brilliantly. The combo is sharper than my Canon 100-400 L and on my 5D3 I get some fantastic photos, it cost more than the 100-400 and you lose from 100 to 140 but if you're using it for the long end it's well worth the money.
 
the digital picture has a nice review and comparison. The mk1 was great lens, but II is in a different league - arguably too sharp for portraits.

You shouldn't even lose much if you get mk11 ebay or panamoz route, as mk1 still goes for insane money used
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top