Canon 70-200 MK2???

friesianfan69

friesianfan69

Messages
769
Name
Donna
Edit My Images
Yes
Is this lens worth the money? Is the Mk 1 as good? And how much used would i expect to pay for one?
Is the a sigma equivelent?
 
  1. Yes - if the difference between its competitors/predecessors is worth it.
  2. No, otherwise there would be little point in the Mk2. :D
  3. I've seen them for sale on private forums for £1400-ish.
  4. Yes - the Sigma 70-200 Mk2, weirdly enough. ;)

The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS Mk2 is a formidable lens - check out the review on www.the-digital-picture.com to see a comparison vs. the Mk1.
 
Last edited:
i have one and it is fantastic. awesome iq and really fast just great!
 
When aliens next land, they will be holding a set of Canon glass.

"take me to the people that made these" they will say. To own Canon glass is one of the steps to enernal life. A ticket to the table of the gods. :)

I feel for the others hahahaha

and now Im ready for the beating :)
 
The only better lens than the 70-200 mk 1 is the 70-200 mk 2. If you can afford the mk2, get it. If not, the mk 1 is still brilliant and you'll be able to sell either for more or less what you pay years down the line.
 
The MK1 is still a very good lens and will hold it's value better than any Sigma. I believe Kerso is selling the MK1 new for a little over £900 - yet people are spending more than this for used ones on eBay!!!
 
jonneymendoza said:
The f4 IS version of this lens blows away the f2.8 mk1 lens for IQ
Click to expand...

There isn't a Mk2 of the f4...... The only Mk2 in the 70-200 range is the f2.8 IS

Steve
 
You know what i mean, the F4 version of the 70-200mm canon lens mate

pfff

its widely known the IS F4 version is better then the f2.8 IS mk1
 
jonneymendoza said:
You know what i mean, the F4 version of the 70-200mm canon lens mate

pfff

its widely known the IS F4 version is better then the f2.8 IS mk1
Click to expand...

Really ? I'd be rather p'ed off paying all that money for the 2.8 to find that the cheaper f4 was "better"....
 
The only advantage the f/2.8 IS Mk1 has over the f/4 IS is the extra stop of light. Granted, if you need that stop then it's a huge advantage. Otherwise, the f/4 IS is sharper, lighter & cheaper.
 
mrthingyx said:
  1. Yes - if the difference between its competitors/predecessors is worth it.
  2. No, otherwise there would be little point in the Mk2. :D
  3. I've seen them for sale on private forums for £1400-ish.
  4. Yes - the Sigma 70-200 Mk2, weirdly enough. ;)

The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS Mk2 is a formidable lens - check out the review on www.the-digital-picture.com to see a comparison vs. the Mk1.
Click to expand...

:lol: Hmmmm i should of seen that one coming, but serves me right.
 
I have the 70-200 Mk 1 F2.8L (non IS) and my wife has the 70-200 F4 IS. Yes, the F4 is lighter, but the 2.8 gives consistently sharper images IMHO
 
I have the f4 IS version of this lens and it is amazing, though have just ordered the 2.8 ISii so I will let you know when I get it! I am massively looking forward to using it...
 
barrypriddis said:
I have the 70-200 Mk 1 F2.8L (non IS) and my wife has the 70-200 F4 IS. Yes, the F4 is lighter, but the 2.8 gives consistently sharper images IMHO
Click to expand...

Then the F4 IS needs fixing tbh.

I've had both and the F4 is sharper, especially so at the long end. Every comment and review I've seen supports this - the F4 IS is a sharper lens than the F2.8 IS Mk1. This is the very reason the Mk2 was introduced, to "redress" the balance.
 
God said:
I have the f4 IS version of this lens and it is amazing, though have just ordered the 2.8 ISii so I will let you know when I get it! I am massively looking forward to using it...
Click to expand...

Ohh im sooo jealous:p
 
Vertigo1 said:
Then the F4 IS needs fixing tbh.

I've had both and the F4 is sharper, especially so at the long end. Every comment and review I've seen supports this - the F4 IS is a sharper lens than the F2.8 IS Mk1. This is the very reason the Mk2 was introduced, to "redress" the balance.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Vertigo1 said:
Then the F4 IS needs fixing tbh.

I've had both and the F4 is sharper, especially so at the long end. Every comment and review I've seen supports this - the F4 IS is a sharper lens than the F2.8 IS Mk1. This is the very reason the Mk2 was introduced, to "redress" the balance.
Click to expand...

Well I had the f4 version and I don't believe it was any sharper. It was very good, and likewise I'm not sure if the f2.8 version is any better either. To be fair, I think I've made more use of my current lens, but I can't honestly say that the f4 was better than my Mk1 f2.8, although since I've had it, I've used it at 2.8 a lot.

I definitely wouldn't go back to the f4 IS now.

Steve
 
jonneymendoza said:
The f4 IS version of this lens blows away the f2.8 mk1 lens for IQ
Click to expand...

what a load of cobblers
I have had 2 of the F4 variety one of them the IS and neither blew away my F2.8IS mk1
take the F4 into any low light situation and you will soon see which one gets picked up first

Jon Ryan
your comment
The only better lens than the 70-200 mk 1 is the 70-200 mk 2. If

another load of cobblers... I have a bunch of Canon Primes here that are sharper than ANY zoom lens I have ever owned and believe me I have had a good few
 
Buttkicker said:
what a load of cobblers
I have had 2 of the F4 variety one of them the IS and neither blew away my F2.8IS mk1
take the F4 into any low light situation and you will soon see which one gets picked up first

Jon Ryan
your comment
The only better lens than the 70-200 mk 1 is the 70-200 mk 2. If

another load of cobblers... I have a bunch of Canon Primes here that are sharper than ANY zoom lens I have ever owned and believe me I have had a good few
Click to expand...




the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2 is best overall,
followed by f/4 IS
then f/2.8 IS,
then F/4 Non-IS
then f/2.8 Non-IS

if you have the money, then get the new f/2.8 IS Mk2
if not then get the F/4 IS
if you don't have the money for that, then get the f/4 non-is
 
jonneymendoza said:
the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2 is best overall,
followed by f/4 IS
then f/2.8 IS,
then F/4 Non-IS
then f/2.8 Non-IS

if you have the money, then get the new f/2.8 IS Mk2
if not then get the F/4 IS
if you don't have the money for that, then get the f/4 non-is
Click to expand...


If I only had an f4 at my last event I would have missed over half my shots at they were taken below f4

It's ridiculous to have such a sweeping statement that the f4 is better than a f2.8 MK I as clearly there are some situation where you could not use an f4 but there is never a time when an f2.8 can't get a shot an f4 can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its better for IQ for christ sakes. cant people understand that? when your shooting in decent light, the f4 beats the f2.8 mk1 hands down.

Almost every reviewer says this. compare apples to apples. why compare the mk1 at f2.8 to the f4 AT F4. come on people jesus.

If your shooting at low light, get a prime which will perform ALOT better then any of these 70-200.

You can get a 70-200 F4 and a 135mm L for just a tad over a single f2.8 mk1
 
jonneymendoza said:
Its better for IQ for christ sakes. cant people understand that? when your shooting in decent light, the f4 beats the f2.8 mk1 hands down.

Almost every reviewer says this. compare apples to apples. why compare the mk1 at f2.8 to the f4 AT F4. come on people jesus.

If your shooting at low light, get a prime which will perform ALOT better then any of these 70-200.

You can get a 70-200 F4 and a 135mm L for just a tad over a single f2.8 mk1
Click to expand...

Have you actually used any of these lenses yourself?.You keep mentioning reviewers this and that.Don't suppose you spend your time trawling through DPR do you?There are nemerous people in this thread who have vast knowledge on actually using these lenses.Some of them I personally know and would trust their opinion over any reviewer any day.
 
You say you trust their opinions in this very same thread yet someone here who has used both actually backed up my claim yet you choose to ignore he/she?

Vertigo1 said:
Then the F4 IS needs fixing tbh.

I've had both and the F4 is sharper, especially so at the long end. Every comment and review I've seen supports this - the F4 IS is a sharper lens than the F2.8 IS Mk1. This is the very reason the Mk2 was introduced, to "redress" the balance.
Click to expand...

here. you missed this post above?
 
Vertigo1 said:
I did. Upgraded to the 2.8 and then back "down" to the 4 again :)
Click to expand...

Why please?
Spare me the pointless expense of either chopping in my 100-400 to put an f/2.8 70-200 alongside my f/4.0 70-200 L IS or chopping in the latter and coming to terms with the extra weight of the f/2.8 version as a walkabout lens.
 
jonneymendoza said:
You say you trust their opinions in this very same thread yet someone here who has used both actually backed up my claim yet you choose to ignore he/she?



here. you missed this post above?
Click to expand...


You are off again.Preaching what other people are saying.Have you used both lenses yourself?
No offense to vertigo1 but I don't know him from Adam.He could be a lifelong pro or someone who picks a camera up once a year.One of those people who likes to talk about photography rather than actually doing it.
There ARE people on this thread I do know and I know their level of photography.They have used the lenses mentioned and I trust their opinions.
 
vulcan2912 said:
You are off again.Preaching what other people are saying.Have you used both lenses yourself?
No offense to vertigo1 but I don't know him from Adam.He could be a lifelong pro or someone who picks a camera up once a year.One of those people who likes to talk about photography rather than actually doing it.
There ARE people on this thread I do know and I know their level of photography.They have used the lenses mentioned and I trust their opinions.
Click to expand...

Preaching of what other people are saying is exactly what your doing saying you preach and trust people in forums about a lens ability.

Pff

Lets buy both lens just to see which is best Lol! I'm not made of money. That's why many read reviews and peoples opinions to make a decision which version to buy instead of tossing a coin.
 
LOL

Been there done that.

70-200 F2.8 iSL Mk1-Awesome lens but could be a bit sharper at F2.8
Moved to the F4isL because I wasn't too happy with the above at F2.8 and found myself using it from F4 upwards.Didn't keep the F2.8 very long.The F4Lis is an awesome lens that would fit most peoples needs.From F4 upwards the iq difference in the above 2 is negligable.If you need F2.8 though!!!
I'll possibly comment on the F2.8MK2 when I get back from London next week.Hopefully it will be sitting here waiting for me on my return.

Cheers
Gary
 
Don't get me wrong lads. All the 70-200 are brilliant. But all in saying us the f4 is better then the f2.8 mk1 in terms off sharpness and IQ. Why do you guys think they introduced three mk2.

You can't go wrong with any of these lens
 
Jonneymendoza
I doubt very much that you have actually owned 'any' of the Lenses you are slagging off with your ridiculous comments about 'Blows away' and other such comments
you have only been a member of this forum for 2 weeks and using entry level equipment yet your preaching to photogs who have been using profesional equipment and are making a living at this

Like I said earlier I have owned pretty much most of the lenses mentioned here bar the latest Mk2 F2.8 version which I have no doubt has some small improvements over all other versions of that focal Length

but it makes me cringe seeing people giving a Lens review after owning it for half a day and taking a picture of the box in the living room then saying its the best thing ever after never using any of the others and I would dare bet you have never actually used any of them bar the F4IS
so like Vulcan2912 correctly says I prefer to listen to people who have first hand experience of using them

So I guess Pro togs such as whiteflyer and others who have been using the Lenses you are slagging off for years sucessfully read such crap that you have been spouting - can you not see that

I have no issue with people giving strong opinions if they have actually used the equipment they are 'dissing'
there are at least 4 top class togs who have forgotten more than most could hope to know about photography who have dipped into this thread and you just dont take in what they say

Have you actually used ANY of the lenses you so expertly are commenting on if yes point me towards your examples that 'blow away' the others
my 2p
 
Last edited:
There was an in depth review of the 70-200 2.8 in Digital Photographer recently. It covered the lenses made by Canon, Sigma, Tamron and Nikon and made for very interesting reading.
The Nikon came out on top followed by the Sigma, then Canon and finally the Tamron. It was a very close run thing with all 4 lenses being very favourably reviewed.

Andy
 
jonneymendoza said:
You can get a 70-200 F4 and a 135mm L for just a tad over a single f2.8 mk1
Click to expand...

And you'll need to buy a 1.4 convertor to get f2.8 at 200mm so that's another £440 to the bill, or add a Canon EF 200mm f2.8L USM for £610.

Simple truth is if you need f2.8 at 200mm and it has to be a zoom lens with IS there is only one choice

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II
well two choices if you are willing to buy secondhand
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
OK 3 if don't need IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM

Now if your shooting at F5.6 or above there is a huge choice from Canon

Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 USM II £214.99
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM £479.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM £870.26
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM £912.77
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II £1789.00
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM £371.83
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM £1014.64
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM III £227.58
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM £1137.00

Now some I think we can all agree would not be our first choice, but I've no idea what the new 70-300 L is like, apart from the fact I think it looks a bit funny :lol::lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The f4 is a nice enough lens, but it's f4. Far too slow for my needs at this focal length, it doesn't even belong in a comparison if you're looking at a f2.8 lens in the first instance. The f4 may be a shade sharper, but for the vast majority of web and small/medium prints you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference.
 
Buttkicker said:
Jonneymendoza
I doubt very much that you have actually owned 'any' of the Lenses you are slagging off with your ridiculous comments about 'Blows away' and other such comments
you have only been a member of this forum for 2 weeks and using entry level equipment yet your preaching to photogs who have been using profesional equipment and are making a living at this

Like I said earlier I have owned pretty much most of the lenses mentioned here bar the latest Mk2 F2.8 version which I have no doubt has some small improvements over all other versions of that focal Length

but it makes me cringe seeing people giving a Lens review after owning it for half a day and taking a picture of the box in the living room then saying its the best thing ever after never using any of the others and I would dare bet you have never actually used any of them bar the F4IS
so like Vulcan2912 correctly says I prefer to listen to people who have first hand experience of using them

So I guess Pro togs such as whiteflyer and others who have been using the Lenses you are slagging off for years sucessfully read such crap that you have been spouting - can you not see that

I have no issue with people giving strong opinions if they have actually used the equipment they are 'dissing'
there are at least 4 top class togs who have forgotten more than most could hope to know about photography who have dipped into this thread and you just dont take in what they say

Have you actually used ANY of the lenses you so expertly are commenting on if yes point me towards your examples that 'blow away' the others
my 2p
Click to expand...


i dont have to OWN any of these lens to make a decision which one to get based on my needs.

I read reviews across the board and grasp what "most" people say about a product and "most" people have said the f4 lens is sharper.

I have read mutiple reviews of f4 and f2.8 mk1 of these lens plus read from flickr groups and from other photo forums like teh photography on the net forum which is basiclalya canon fanboy forum. MOST and i repeat again MOST have said teh F4 is sharper.

So what if 2 or 3 users from this thread are pros? sorry but i will believe the 100+ people that said the F4 lens is sharper compared to these "3" pro's in here.

O and whats my so called entry level equipment and me being a member here for 2 weeks have ANYTHING to do with this topic?

You think every pro carries a bloody 1dk m4? Are you one of those amatures who say to themselves "equipment matters most, not the person behind teh camera?"

I expect a remark about my gear from a 10 year old who plays with their dads 1d mk4 but from mature adults witha bit of knowledge of photography!:bonk:

all these camera's and lenses are all "tools" The man behind the camera is the one that makes the difference.

Back on topic, of course at f2.8 there is no comparison. no one is denying that. but from f4 upwards, the f4 is known to be sharper then the mk1 otherwise why bring out a mk2?

And some one said a 135L may not be long enough. Again that depends if you mostly shoot at135L or above. if you do, fair enough it make be too short but if you dont why even argue about my suggestion setup then?

Also, everyone is forgetting how heavy and big the f2.8 lens is. You will need a tripod or IS unless you are a person that stays fit and goes to the gym every day pumping weights.

You got to ask yourself. Do you normally shoot at wide aperture at 70-200?? if you dont then whats the point in getting f2.8 then?

If i was to get a f2.8, it would be the f2.8 IS version
 
photography on the net forum is not a Canon fanboy site.

Is a site set up by Pekka Saarinen specificity for Canon digital camera enthusiasts, that's why it's full of Canon fanboys :) and to be honest probably the best forums on the net if you have Canon gear.

known to be sharper then the mk1 otherwise why bring out a mk2?
Click to expand...
There is the much improved IS system Canon have over what the MK I had too, but yes the mk II is a better lens all round.

Also, everyone is forgetting how heavy and big the f2.8 lens is. You will need a tripod or IS unless you are a person that stays fit and goes to the gym every day pumping weights
Click to expand...

I'm over 50, I NEVER go to the gym, I don't use a tripod, and rarely use a monopod (sometimes if I have the extender on the 70-200 or using a 100-400) yet I have no problem carrying and shooting with my 2.8 IS on a 1D mk IV body, all day at track and field events.

You have been believing too many reviews there :) yes it heavier than a f4 L, but some bright spark will come along and say get a 55-200 because it's lighter than an f4 L lens. The weight really should not be an issue for anyone without underlying health problems. IMHO

I do agree if your never going to need f2.8 then why waste your money, and with new bodies get better at very high ISO less people will need 2.8, then just get the f4, but some folk need the f2.8 or want that bit more background blur it will give, to be honest if I could find and afford one I would have a 200 mm f1.8 L :) well the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM really :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My mum uses my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 on a 1Ds2 without any problems. Again you appear to be giving out information on something you obviously haven't tried yourself. If you were considering an f2.8 lens and ended up buying an f4, you were looking at the f2:8 for the wrong reasons in the first place. The sharpness difference is so small it's not really a factor in deciding between the two.
 
Buttkicker said:
what a load of cobblers
I have had 2 of the F4 variety one of them the IS and neither blew away my F2.8IS mk1
take the F4 into any low light situation and you will soon see which one gets picked up first

Jon Ryan
your comment
The only better lens than the 70-200 mk 1 is the 70-200 mk 2. If

another load of cobblers... I have a bunch of Canon Primes here that are sharper than ANY zoom lens I have ever owned and believe me I have had a good few
Click to expand...

Primes? Who is talking about primes? I though we we re discussing zooms. Do try to keep up :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top