Canon 70-200 f2.8 mk 2 or mk3

Messages
7
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Hi,
I want to get people views on the above lenses. Not got one but I know everyone rates it for landscape and wildlife. Mk3 has been released but apart from colour and coatings on lenses there is not much difference. Looking at Panama as friend had no problem ordering but since I not upgrading do you get mk2 or mk3 or save money to buy something with the difference. Thank you for any advice
John
 
OP
OP
C
Messages
7
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
The problem i have is second hand ones on EBay are going about £950-£1000 Mark . You can get new one for about £100 more.
 
Messages
3,954
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
Don't think the MK2 is supported by Canon anymore, might be worth checking before purchasing.
 
Messages
2,098
Name
Stu
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
Don't think the MK2 is supported by Canon anymore, might be worth checking before purchasing.
I oft wonder about this lens, and the comparison, hence reading thiis thread.................Matt, thanks, no way this would have occurred to me that a mark ii is wouldn't potentially be covered, i've no idea why the penny wouldn't drop as they have a new lens out which always means the count down to no support for the older is coming,but yup that one I would have missed

cheers !!

stu
 
Messages
1,321
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
#7
I must admit that I've been drooling over either one of these lenses, although I can't really justify the expense, so it may not end up in my bag anytime soon.
I couldn't see a real reason for choosing the new MK III over the MK II though. Would it really matter if Canon stopped supporting the MK II, considering that Panamoz offer a 3 year warranty?
 
OP
OP
C
Messages
7
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
Looking at Panamoz as there is loads more mk2 up for sale on fleabay.what is consensus is everyone upgrading before prices drop. I have always been looking but it just the expense that is scary
 
Messages
68
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
I’ve read that the f2.8 IS Mk1, which was first released in 2001, went out of support in early 2017. Whilst there are no guarantees, this could indicate that the f2.8 IS Mk2, which was first released in 2010, may still be supported up until 2026. That’s still a long time off.
 
Last edited:
Messages
285
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
I’ve read that the f2.8 IS Mk1, which was first released in 2001, went out of support in early 2017. Whilst there are no guarantees, this could indicate that the f2.8 IS Mk2, which was first released in 2010, may still be supported up until 2016. That’s still a long time off.
eek. I must be living in the future :)
 
Messages
1,094
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
Hi,
I want to get people views on the above lenses. Not got one but I know everyone rates it for landscape and wildlife. Mk3 has been released but apart from colour and coatings on lenses there is not much difference. Looking at Panama as friend had no problem ordering but since I not upgrading do you get mk2 or mk3 or save money to buy something with the difference. Thank you for any advice
John

I have the mk2 and find it a very good all rounder. It’s not my go-to lens for wildlife, I use longer focal length for that and for more reach on landscape normally I pick out the 100-400. I find 70-200 best for indoor sports, events and portraits.
 
Messages
973
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I had the Mk2 and it did exactly what it said on the tin. I'll be amazed if the optical improvements (if any) of the Mk3 are worth the price difference.

After I bought the 100-400 mk2 I never used my 70-200 again and consequently sold it.

In truth, unless you absolutely need 2.8, I suggest you go for the new f4.0 version.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
C
Messages
7
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
Oh, I am now confused as that is another two lenses thrown into the equation Thought i was decided on the one lense so I think I need more research
 
Messages
973
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
Oh, I am now confused as that is another two lenses thrown into the equation Thought i was decided on the one lense so I think I need more research
Just as a point of interest, what camera do you have?

I found 200mm is not particularly long on full frame.
 
Last edited:
Messages
130
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
The MK 3 would be worth it for a heavy user or pro. Saying that I would imagine they will hold their value extremely well and still be very valuable a long time from now
 
OP
OP
C
Messages
7
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
I have a 7d at the moment. I was thinking maybe mk3 as forking out that money it will hold it value if I decide to change
 

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Messages
3,572
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
AS a mainly wildlife photographer, I had a 70-200 mk2 and used to hang a 1.4 converter on it to give me the extra reach, when the mk2 100-400 came out I, like Tony above, sold my 70-200. (I shoot FF)

Unless you really need the 2.8, the 100-400 gives you more flexibility for a virtually equivalent IQ, but it really depends on your type of photography.

Have you thought of renting one to see if it fits your bill?

George.
 
Top