Canon 70-200 f2.8 I/S, any difference between MK 1 & 2?

M

Martylaa

Messages
305
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says, if you were buying one, what would make you go MK2 over the MK1 as theres quite a big price swing?
 
Mk II if you can afford it
 
Money no object, mkII hands down. I forget what the site is now, but there are direct image comparisons of the two lenses, in a proper comparison test. I was surprised at how much better the mkII actually was in the test I read.

I'm definitely going to get one, but not for around a year I'd say. Got to buy the 5DmkIII first :D
 
Ok so how about either the 70-200 f4 IS or the 70-200 f2.8 non IS?
Landscapes, baby pictures etc???
Which one would you go for???
 
The Mk2 blows the Mk1 out of the water basically.
 
Martylaa said:
Ok so how about either the 70-200 f4 IS or the 70-200 f2.8 non IS?
Landscapes, baby pictures etc???
Which one would you go for???
Click to expand...

Well the 70-200 isn't strictly a lens you'd consider for landscapes, but it can be used. I took the following with my F4 non IS:


Landscape 3 by Niall Allen, on Flickr

So you can use it for landscape shots, but most think for the 14mm, 10-20, 12-24, 24-70 sort of lenses for that.
 
nothing wrong with that shot at all, thats why i'd say it can be used for landscapes, maybe i'm being a bit anal here and the f4 non is is enough for me???
ahh decisions decisions....
 
As long as you can avoid the dummy spitting and the patently wrong info, there's some good stuff on there! :)
 
Purely for landscape get the f4 but if you will use this for anything thats moving in low light, grab the mk2.

IMHO as im in the same kind of boat as you, i would go for the mk2 purely as its more versatile and even those the f4 is good enough for landscape, well so is the f2.8 + more.

Make sure that if you do get the f4, dont look back and wonder if you should have got the f2.8 instead!

i say, if you have the money, then why not?

alternatively you can grab the f4 IS and a 135L combined for similar price.

yes i probably have thrown more choices to you making it harder LOL but please consider "all" possible options i.e f4 + prime? or the mk2 alone
 
Comparison site mentioned above is www.the-digital-picture.com

Mk2 2.8 is sharper and takes a 2x extender well, retaining AF at f/5.6. Flares less. Fab lens.

F/4 IS is very nearly as good, takes a 1.4x extender, and is much lighter and cheaper.

If you need f/2.8, or the 2x extender option, get the Mk2. Otherwise, f/4 IS is the smart buy.
 
DemiLion said:
Yes it is. Why limit yourself?
Click to expand...

I wasn't really clear. Painkillers have eaten my brain :D

My thinking was that if someone was buying a single lens, and landscape was the reason for it, you'd be more likely to go for a wider angle lens. I got my 12-24 for landscapes over the 17-40.

Obviously it depends on what exactly you're taking photos of landscape wise. You could use any lens you like!
 
i have the 15-85 f3.5 which i have taken a few landscape shots on so for the wider lens i feel i'm covered in that area
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top