Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS mk2 Bokeh

futureal33

futureal33

Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon all,

I have been considering getting the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS Mk2 for sometime.

I currently shoot with a 135L which I love to bits, and rarely go over f2 with it. If I got the 70-200 2.8 I think I would shoot it at 2.8 most of the time... as such the bokeh is quite an important characteristic.

This is where my worry begins... I have read quite a few articles which claim the MK2 70-200 2.8 doesnt have particuarly nice bokeh, and that the 70-200 mk1 is actually BETTER in this regard.
Ive even seen a comparison between the two and had to agree.

As I would need to sell my 135L to fund the mk2, but could probably just about afford the mk1 without selling my 135L, I am wondering what to do.

Ive also read reports that the MK1 70-200 2.8 is soft at 200mm 2.8 - which worries me too.

It seems to be a case of

70-200 2.8 IS Mk1 - Great bokeh, older IS, not overly sharp at 200mm 2.8
70-200 2.8 IS Mk2 - OK bokeh, amazing IS, amazingly sharp throughout, very contrasty
135L - best bokeh, small and light, amazingly sharp throughout

Just wondered what other people's take on the 70-200 2.8 MK2 bokeh is, especially those who might have come from using a 135L to compare it to?

Thanks :)
 
pete.rush said:
why do you want to move from a prime to a zoom?

Do you need IS?, there is the 70-200mm f2.8 (non IS) which is considered sharper than the IS version wide open, which will reduce the cost even more

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Click to expand...

My current set up is nearly all primes. I have shot a few weddings now, and my first Christening last weekend. I was swapping lenses all the time and constantly worried about missing the shot because of the focal length required for the shot.

I came out of the Christening and my first thoughts were, wish I'd had a 70-200 2.8 for that.
My 135L and 85 were great - but often I needed to step back, and that was the biggest problem.. when there wasnt room or time to do so.

I have seen countless comparisons of 70-200's vs the 135L and I think realistically there is very little in it.
My main concern would be that Id have to sell the 135L to get the 70-200 MK2, whereas I could probably afford the mk1 without needing to sell the 135.

Then I read a review that said the 70-200 mk1 (with IS) actually had nicer bokeh than the mk2...

IS is a major reason for my interest in these lenses, so while I dont doubt that the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is very good, I wouldn't be interested in it.
 
Firstly, I have both these lenses.

If you took a test shot with the 135mm lens and then took the same shot with the 70-200mm at 135mm I doubt if I could tell the difference.

There are a few guys on here with both lenses that pretty much would agree and the only reason we keep the 135mm is because it is so sharp and I for one am very reluctant to sell a sharp lens.
 
I have been known to take pics of horses at events so If I know I'll be in a fixed position for a long period of time taking shots ie, at a cross counrty fence and the 135mm is the required focal length then it will get used as it's lighter.

If on the other hand I'm in a showjumping ring covering two or more jumps at different distances away then I'll use the 70-200mm.

I cannot emphasise enough the difference in quality the MkII has over the MkI
 
I went from a MkI to a MkII last week and, like most people on here, I've found the difference between the two to be absolutely breathtaking. Some of the shots I'm getting wide open as very similar in IQ to my 100 L macro it's that sharp. I'm also very happy with the bokeh of the MkII and personally I prefer it to the MkI. I bought my MkII from www.panamoz.com and paid by bank transfer for a 5% discount, it was £1361.34 delivered, which works out at over £500 cheaper than some UK suppliers such as Jessops and LCE.
 
Not of a person but this was shot with the MKI 70-200mm f2.8 when I first got it.
I was just testing it but shows the bokeh pretty well.



Camera Canon EOS 50D
Canon EF 70-200mm L f2.8 IS
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/362)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 185 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV
 
I only got my 70-200 II today so I haven't had a chance to have a proper play with it but I've been seriously impressed so far! :)
 
If you're really that concerned about such a relative subtlety (and that's what it is, bordering on irrelevance IMHO) then the only way to get a conclusive answer is to hire a 70-200 Mk2 and try them side by side.

You'll end up with the zoom though ;) :D
 
Is the difference in optical quality between the 70-200 2.8 IS a subtlety also?

There's such mixed opinions about it, makes me wonder if its a QC issue with the Mk1 IS?

How can some reviews say that the mk1 is slightly softer than the mk2, and other reviews say that the mk1 is hopeless above 160mm at 2.8?

I have also read through this article - which makes the mk1 look terrible... although tbh the mk2 looks soft aswell!
 
futureal33 said:
Is the difference in optical quality between the 70-200 2.8 IS a subtlety also?

There's such mixed opinions about it, makes me wonder if its a QC issue with the Mk1 IS?

How can some reviews say that the mk1 is slightly softer than the mk2, and other reviews say that the mk1 is hopeless above 160mm at 2.8?

I have also read through this article - which makes the mk1 look terrible... although tbh the mk2 looks soft aswell!
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by optical quality, presumably sharpness, and between which lenses?

Have you checked The-digital-Picture.com? Their lens tests are good for assessing sharpness, and I trust them on longer lenses. Sharpness can be measured, bokeh can't really, because it's never been defined and opinions vary.

Load up a few comparisons, such as between Mk1 and Mk2 here - toggle arrow in the middle http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

TBH, I still think you should hire a Mk2. It's clearly an issue for you, and I just don't think you'll get peace of mind unless to try them side by side. As you seem to have discovered, user reviews are not that helpful on this kind of thing.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not sure what you mean by optical quality, presumably sharpness, and between which lenses?

Have you checked The-digital-Picture.com? Their lens tests are good for assessing sharpness, and I trust them on longer lenses. Sharpness can be measured, bokeh can't really, because it's never been defined and opinions vary.

Load up a few comparisons, such as between Mk1 and Mk2 here - toggle arrow in the middle http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

TBH, I still think you should hire a Mk2. It's clearly an issue for you, and I just don't think you'll get peace of mind unless to try them side by side. As you seem to have discovered, user reviews are not that helpful on this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Richard, good advice, thanks :)
I plan on hiring a mk2 for my next wedding, I know Im going to love it though!!

Although, my original dilemma is still valid:

70-200 2.8 IS mk1 + 135L
vs
70-200 2.8 IS mk2

The ideal answer is a Mk2 + 135L but thats not really an option unfortunately!
 
futureal33 said:
Richard, good advice, thanks :)
I plan on hiring a mk2 for my next wedding, I know Im going to love it though!!

Although, my original dilemma is still valid:

70-200 2.8 IS mk1 + 135L
vs
70-200 2.8 IS mk2

The ideal answer is a Mk2 + 135L but thats not really an option unfortunately!
Click to expand...
just go and try the one, you may find you dont need the 135.
 
futureal33 said:
Richard, good advice, thanks :)
I plan on hiring a mk2 for my next wedding, I know Im going to love it though!!

Although, my original dilemma is still valid:

70-200 2.8 IS mk1 + 135L
vs
70-200 2.8 IS mk2

The ideal answer is a Mk2 + 135L but thats not really an option unfortunately!
Click to expand...

Can't answer the bokeh question, but I'm fairly sure that if you like to shoot wide open a lot, and are used the the 135L, you'll not be happy with the sharpness of the 70-200 Mk1.
 
HoppyUK said:
Can't answer the bokeh question, but I'm fairly sure that if you like to shoot wide open a lot, and are used the the 135L, you'll not be happy with the sharpness of the 70-200 Mk1.
Click to expand...

^^^^^ this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top