Canon 70-200 f2.8 mk 2 or mk3

Messages
7
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
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 had the Mkii and never felt the need to upgrade, personally I'd go for a used Mkii if I could get a good one.
 
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.
In that case then I'd go for new. About £1050 on E-infinity at the moment.
 
Don't think the MK2 is supported by Canon anymore, might be worth checking before purchasing.
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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:
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 :)
 
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.
 
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:
Oh, I am now confused as that is another two lenses thrown into the equation Thought i was decided on the one lens so I think I need more research
 
Oh, I am now confused as that is another two lenses thrown into the equation Thought i was decided on the one lens 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:
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top