- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
for your needs you are correct... but in this thread you are preaching about Lenses none of which you have ever used or owned - most of the other thread posters have
Canon 70-200 MK2???
- Thread starter friesianfan69
- Start date
for your needs you are correct... but in this thread you are preaching about Lenses none of which you have ever used or owned - most of the other thread posters have
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
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 fanboysand to be honest probably the best forums on the net if you have Canon gear.
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.
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
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 you know what i mean
that forum, many have said the f4 is sharper. and as you say, best site for canon gear.So i will believe the 1000 members who share same opinion compared to 3 or 4 users in this thread
having f2.8 is nice. no doubt about that but the question is, do you shoot indoors or in very low light conditions on moving targets?
The Mk2 lens is the LENS to get. not the mk1
- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Whiteflyer - once you use a 200mm F1.8mm you would have to buy it, as the smile on your face would stiil be there a couple of hours after
You may not use the lens wide open but gains needed when the light is low and pushing ISO even more isn't an option, F/3.2,3.5 allow that extra SS to get the sharper images. ... The sharpness argument will go on but speaking from experience, The 2.8 mk2 every time over the f/4
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's certainly one of the questions......
Another one would be....do you need the improved focus accurracy of the f/2.8 over the f/4?
Bob
W
whiteflyer
Guest
Do I qualify
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/320
Av( Aperture Value ) 2.8
ISO Speed 4000
Lens EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Yes if I could afford it I'd swap to a MK II, but I don't think my 6 numbers are even in the lotto machine
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The non-is is better than the Sigma mkII I have, but it is so slight it's not worth he extra expense to me. From what I've seen of the canon mkII... I'm beginning to think that is worth the cash, I'm going to hire one first though.
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Niall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I like the roller girl photo I doubt I'd get a shot as decent as that even with the equipment 
To be honest, it never ceases to amaze me how people turn into raving loons when talking about equipment. Arguments regarding things that weren't said, dragging conversations widely off topic, insulting peoples info sources and resorting to the use of terms like "fan boy".
To me the point being made regarding the F4 was quite clear, and made based on the information I'm assuming is the same I've read myself when looking to purchase my F4. Incidentally I'd buy a mkII in a heartbeat if I had the cash, but I went for the F4 non IS, plain and simply because it was an upgrade from the icky cheapo 70-300 sigma I was using, and was all that was affordable at the time to me. Yes I lost some length, but it's a great lens and really sharp.
There are reviews, enthusiast sites and there's even a site out there (or was when I was looking at the end of last year) that shows direct comparisons of image quality between the 70-200 2.8 mkI and the F4. It also showed the difference between the MKI & MKII 2.8 which was quite a lot, which surprised me.
Still, why do people insist on arguing with people in a seemingly insulting way, rather than posting facts with links to disprove the person they feel is wrong? Is it too much to ask to be civilised if challenging someone's info?
I doubt I'd get a shot as decent as that even with the equipment To be honest, it never ceases to amaze me how people turn into raving loons when talking about equipment. Arguments regarding things that weren't said, dragging conversations widely off topic, insulting peoples info sources and resorting to the use of terms like "fan boy".
To me the point being made regarding the F4 was quite clear, and made based on the information I'm assuming is the same I've read myself when looking to purchase my F4. Incidentally I'd buy a mkII in a heartbeat if I had the cash, but I went for the F4 non IS, plain and simply because it was an upgrade from the icky cheapo 70-300 sigma I was using, and was all that was affordable at the time to me. Yes I lost some length, but it's a great lens and really sharp.
There are reviews, enthusiast sites and there's even a site out there (or was when I was looking at the end of last year) that shows direct comparisons of image quality between the 70-200 2.8 mkI and the F4. It also showed the difference between the MKI & MKII 2.8 which was quite a lot, which surprised me.
Still, why do people insist on arguing with people in a seemingly insulting way, rather than posting facts with links to disprove the person they feel is wrong? Is it too much to ask to be civilised if challenging someone's info?
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Niall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know what you mean. I nearly got that lens myself, and I'd love to rent the MKII but I might be cheeky when the time comes and pop into a shop to see what it's like to use rather than rent it. Obviously not a great way to fully test it, but paying for rental would dent the savings for a lens
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know what you mean. I nearly got that lens myself, and I'd love to rent the MKII but I might be cheeky when the time comes and pop into a shop to see what it's like to use rather than rent it. Obviously not a great way to fully test it, but paying for rental would dent the savings for a lens
Actually a good point, but I don't trust myself that much. I'd end up leaving the shop with it!
I'm going to try to have a look at the Sigma OS version as well. At £800 less than the Canon I wonder if the softer corners are going to be "that" much of an issue to me...
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Niall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True enough. I find myself over analysing things more and more these days, so I think that would drive me nuts!
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Haven't tried the MK2 version but I can guarantee you that the MK1 version is absolutely superb.
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know what you mean. I nearly got that lens myself, and I'd love to rent the MKII but I might be cheeky when the time comes and pop into a shop to see what it's like to use rather than rent it. Obviously not a great way to fully test it, but paying for rental would dent the savings for a lens
I know a renting shop that you can rent it for a weekend or even a week and if you like it and want to buy they sell you a new one and deduct what you pay for the rental
W
whiteflyer
Guest
Actually a good point, but I don't trust myself that much. I'd end up leaving the shop with it!
You do make an important statement here, is the Canon £800 better than a Sigma, well for 99.9% of folk I would doubt it.
There is always an issue of want over need, we all want the latest greatest thing, but do we really need it , nope we don't. Lets be totally honest here VERY few of us really need L lenses at all, we are not shooting for glossy magazines or high fashion shoots, were that teenie tiny bit of extra sharpness or contrast is necessary. We are shooting for ourselves in the main for the web and printing at A4 where your not really going to see the benefits, this goes even for a lot of pro tog who's images are only being published in the newspapers.
Cost has to be an issue when buying or upgrading even more so with Canon prices for MK II lenses. I know when Mk I and MK II 70-200 f2.8 were available there was a big difference, and is a 300 f2.8 MK II really worth £2000 more than a MK I , for the 400 mm it's an extra £2500, and the 500 and 600 are £3500 more. You'd be mad in my opinion to dump a MK I of a Mk II in any of these, the way Canon are going they will put the white L lenses out of the range on most people.
Now Donnas original question was
The first part only you can answer, it's your money and you'd have decide if it's money well spent.
No the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM in not as good as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Yes Sigma make an equivalent lens in terms of zoom range 2.8 aperture and image stabilization.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is it really? Hmmm wasn't aware most people here print only up to A4
Well... I print up to A0..
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
W
whiteflyer
Guest
I did say most, not all
There are just short of 40 thousand members on here, I think saying most will be fairly accurate. I would wager there are number who never print images out at all, and just use the web, computer, and digital frames to display their work.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I did say most, not all
There are just short of 40 thousand members on here, I think saying most will be fairly accurate. I would wager there are number who never print images out at all, and just use the web, computer, and digital frames to display their work.
Bearing that in mind and in the same process of thought why we all investing in such expensive kit then? Couldn't we achieve the same results, most of the times, for the same purposes "
)" with just PS kits? Surely the bigger image prints and higher resolutions are also by products of other benefits that such expensive equipment offer, even if those "majority of members here" print those sizes only that's no reason in my humble opinion to just limit yourself to buying second best lenses or equipment etc.
Just saying...
I have bigger hands than most, if I only went on what was said on forums you'd think a D3100 was a Chinese finger trap, but I can hold it comfortably even if 2 fingers are completely off the thing. And shock horror, a 70-200 balances perfectly well on it if you support the weight in your left hand, like you're supposed to. These are often held to be impossible by many on a forum.
Most people believe in a thing called "pixel level sharpness" whatever that is. Which handily ignores the fact that a pixel can never be sharp or unsharp, it's a square with an rgb value. And think the signal processing artifacting from DSPs count as extra detail (it's a large part of what you get when you remove an AA filter).
"Most people think" tells you nothing more than what most people think.
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
i've held the f2.8. its big and large and holding that around your neck all day could be a problem.
great lens but mk1 is a waste. get the mk2 version
great lens but mk1 is a waste. get the mk2 version
- Messages
- 10,034
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mate, you really have no idea do you...
I run an f2.8 on a 7D, I'm 5' 10" and not particularly strong but when you use your kit properly, carry it properly, and use suitable bags etc is is NO problem at all.
And even if the f4 IS is "better" which is not my personal experience, calling the Mk1 a waste is just gibberish. Until the Mk2 came along, almost every sports & wildlife photographer who shoot Canon had the Mk1 in his kit bag. A lens doesn't get bad over night, the Mk2 is just better, like all of the new range of Canon telephoto lenses. You'll be telling us that the 300 f2.8L IS (Mk1) is crap next.... :shake:
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
mk2 is a fantastic lens. better then the f4 versions. the mk1 is not. Im 5.7 mate i could carry a f2.8 around but at the moment the price tag for a f2.8 is too much for many.
its £1.7k here in the UK and the F4 IS is half that price. the mk1 version was never that high from what i can remember. it was around 1.3k the f2.8 IS mk1
Any difference in sharpness between any of the Canon L zoom lenses is generally only going to be detected by pixel peepers anyway. Talk of one 'blowing away' the others is silly.
That said I would get a MK II if I could justify it (MK I f2.8 non-IS owner).
That said I would get a MK II if I could justify it (MK I f2.8 non-IS owner).
- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hear Hear. I have used the 2.8 IS for a walking weekend. If you are set up properly, there shouldn't be any problems. That and the 100-400 L IS.
I have used it both without and with a grip on the 7d.
Right hand takes the weight of the camera. Left hand thumb on DOF/IS start, That leaves 4 fingers to hold the weight of the lens. I ain't a weakling, but definitely no body builder. The 2.8 IS is not 'significantly' heavy in my opinion for a healthy adult human.
On the focus side of things. I would be happier to accept the judgement of those that say it is sharp, over those that say it is not.
Especially if those that say it is sharp are pros, who would take the time to adjust the focus of their camera, especially given the small DOF. When I tested the focus on mine, the DOF was less than the width of a fence post.
- Messages
- 1,902
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- No
Hence why most people use black-rapid/quick strap/sun sniper/optech shoulder straps with large heavy lenses.
After using shoulder straps I wouldn't go back to a neck strap, even for lighter lenses like the 70-200 f/4.
The 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS costs about the same as a 70-200 f/4L IS.
To people shooting moving stuff in lower light, the extra stop of light is much more valuable than the higher sharpness/lighter weight of the f/4 versions.
Having the absolute sharpest lens at comparable apertures isn't (and shouldn't be) the highest priority for a lot of people.
W
whiteflyer
Guest
As I said we all want the best and if we can afford it well why not. Yes for some things you do have to buy the top stuff, for example long 2.8 lenses are all L or D and you may need that supper high frame rate of a 1 series. (taking Canon here)
Now if your shooting landscapes or portraits and only viewing at web sized or 10 x 8 Prints you are just not going to see the benefits of the very top spec lenses.
A similar thing happen to car freaks, they want a 200 mph supercar, yet the speed limit is 70 in the UK, your just not going to use the full potential of a Ferrari or Zonda, but with a jackpot lotto win they are on out shipping list.
Now on to the weight, it just a non issue once you start to use the 2.8, yes if you don't have one and just pick it up for a feel you'll think it's heavy but not in regular use. Same thing with 1 series bodies, oh! they are so big say all the chaps with 7D, 50D, who then go an get a battery grip to make their camera the same size and weight at as a 1D.
You'd have no choice, they no longer sell the mkI anyway.
Now if your shooting landscapes or portraits and only viewing at web sized or 10 x 8 Prints you are just not going to see the benefits of the very top spec lenses.
A similar thing happen to car freaks, they want a 200 mph supercar, yet the speed limit is 70 in the UK, your just not going to use the full potential of a Ferrari or Zonda, but with a jackpot lotto win they are on out shipping list.
Now on to the weight, it just a non issue once you start to use the 2.8, yes if you don't have one and just pick it up for a feel you'll think it's heavy but not in regular use. Same thing with 1 series bodies, oh! they are so big say all the chaps with 7D, 50D, who then go an get a battery grip to make their camera the same size and weight at as a 1D.
You'd have no choice, they no longer sell the mkI anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is also a sort of x-factor type thing with lenses.
Years ago I was considering whether to get an F4 IS or F2.8 non-IS for a similar budget. I looked at test charts and yes, the F4 IS did appear to be sharper and people claimed faster AF
But at the end of the day, i preferred the images from the 2.8 lens, not entirely sure why or if it was something measurable, I just liked it more! I've been looking at pictures taken with the 2.8 IS mk2 and you know what? I really really like them!
Using a word like "better" with these lenses is a bit misleading, better at what? better at reproducing test charts?
Years ago I was considering whether to get an F4 IS or F2.8 non-IS for a similar budget. I looked at test charts and yes, the F4 IS did appear to be sharper and people claimed faster AF
But at the end of the day, i preferred the images from the 2.8 lens, not entirely sure why or if it was something measurable, I just liked it more! I've been looking at pictures taken with the 2.8 IS mk2 and you know what? I really really like them!
Using a word like "better" with these lenses is a bit misleading, better at what? better at reproducing test charts?
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
ahh i see so if i had 1k to spend on a tele zoom lens, the f2.8 should be the one to get?
i might miss the IS though?
to me, its between the f4 IS and the f2.8 IS. i dont think i will be satisfied with no IS in a zoom lens like this.
and whats this shoulder strap you are suggesting? got any link to any decent ones i can try?
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jonney, you certainly have made a splash in the forum within just weeks of joining in. And from what it seems you not knowing even about shoulder straps etc are tell tell signs that you certainly have a big space to fill in your bag of photographic skills and knowledge. Not trying to undermine your knowledge or photographic skills but definitely you seem like you could learn a thing or two from many of the great and friendly forum members here. One word of advice though coming from someone who has treaded the same paths before, avoid getting up to the noses of some of the brilliant forum members here and you are likely to learn a hell lot more. Many here are fantastic photographers with a great deal of knowledge and experience and they go to huge lengths to teach and explain lots of things that turn out to be extremely useful to solidify one's skill in this field.
And to answer to your query about straps, just do a search in the forum and you are bound to find lots of threads and help about straps
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
Cool thanks.
i never said i was a pro here. i do photograhy as a hobby not a job and only been at it for around 3 years now.
You see, if i dont understand something i am not afraid to speak up. also i tend to speak whats on my mind too and in this case, i feel that the f4 is is sharper then the f2.8 mk1 based on what i have read and seen from different sources.
It might be a tiny bit sharper in some scenarios - that's a world away from saying that it 'blows it away', and that buying the mkI is a waste of time though.
- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Jonneymendoza
a little scenario here for you
new photographer Jonney Mendoza saves his pennies and buys a Canon 70-200F2.8 mk2IS and is very pleased as punch with his purchase
18 months Later Canon release the Canon 70-200IS F2.8mk3
Jonney Mendoza Junior takes up photography and reads online that the new MK3 is a slight improvement over the mk2
then proceeds to tell people on the biggest photography forum in the Uk that the Mk2 is a waste and arguing the point till he is blue in the face, do you not see that you are rubbing people up the wrong way... perhaps you do!!!!
a little scenario here for you
new photographer Jonney Mendoza saves his pennies and buys a Canon 70-200F2.8 mk2IS and is very pleased as punch with his purchase
18 months Later Canon release the Canon 70-200IS F2.8mk3
Jonney Mendoza Junior takes up photography and reads online that the new MK3 is a slight improvement over the mk2
then proceeds to tell people on the biggest photography forum in the Uk that the Mk2 is a waste and arguing the point till he is blue in the face, do you not see that you are rubbing people up the wrong way... perhaps you do!!!!
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 442
- Name
- Dave (Who'da thunk it!)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now...theres the key. If you had said that in your opinion or even for what you choose to shoot the f/4 is sharper/better suited, people wouldnt argue with you. Its your opinion and youre entitled to it. There is no such thing as a 'one lens fits all'.
What youre doing though is arguing with seasoned pros (and indeed hobbyists) that have actually USED this kit on a regular basis, and your entire argument is based on stuff you read. I think your argument is flawed, to be honest.
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok maybe your right i diddnt say "imo" but that is what i have meant all along that based on all the different sources, reviews, images etc etc, IMO the f4 is sharper then the mk1 f2.8
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem is, the mk1 is not a soft lens so the f4 being "sharper" is only a small difference that really does not matter for most uses. You really shouldn't concentrate on the sharpness differences in this range of lenses, it's really not that high on the list in deciding which to buy.
W
whiteflyer
Guest
nope. im not comparing mk1 to mk2. im comparing mk1 to f4
That's not strictly true, your comparing a 2.8 mkI to f4 IS.
Now the IS version of the f4 is more or less the f4 mk II
So how much better / worse is the 2.8 to the f4 NON IS
