Canon 70-200 MK2???

jonneymendoza said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's all relative to the situation.

Yes, the f/4 is a bit sharper and lighter, but in some situations have f/2.8 available (being able to halve your shutter speed) will get a much higher hit rate.

If you want something lighter weight and aren't worried about shooting moving stuff in low light (or getting even smaller DoF), the f/4 is an excellent choice, but the f/2.8 MKI (both IS and non-IS) still have a place in the market for people who need a fast zoom in this range but can't stretch to the mkII.
The point I was making is that the f/2.8 MKI's aren't redundant simply because the f/4 versions and the more expensive mkII's have better IQ.



For the shoulder straps, I've got a quick strap from ebay.

For £15, it's very similar to the £40-50 blackrapid straps which everyone raves about.
Takes the weight of my 100-400L no problem, much much more comfortable than a neck strap.
The blackrapid ones are also very good though if you can stretch to the prices, also the sun-sniper and optech ones are highly rated by a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
It's all relative to the situation.

Yes, the f/4 is a bit sharper and lighter, but in some situations have f/2.8 available (being able to halve your shutter speed) will get a much higher hit rate.

If you want something lighter weight and aren't worried about shooting moving stuff in low light (or getting even smaller DoF), the f/4 is an excellent choice, but the f/2.8 MKI (both IS and non-IS) still have a place in the market for people who need a fast zoom in this range but can't stretch to the mkII.
The point I was making is that the f/2.8 MKI's aren't redundant simply because the f/4 versions and the more expensive mkII's have better IQ.



For the shoulder straps, I've got a quick strap from ebay.

For £15, it's very similar to the £40-50 blackrapid straps which everyone raves about.
Takes the weight of my 100-400L no problem, much much more comfortable than a neck strap.
The blackrapid ones are also very good though if you can stretch to the prices, also the sun-sniper and optech ones are highly rated by a lot of people.
Click to expand...

is the only difference between the f2.8 none IS and mk2 IS is the weather sealed and IS functionality?

For about 100 or £200 more i could get the F2.8 None IS lens
 
:naughty:I will put my two pennies worth in i have owned both the lenses and run them side by side the 200mm F2.8 mk1 i.s and the 200mm F4 i.s :Dand before you query my qualifications:lol: i have been published in outdoor photography , AP and a few others i also do wedding photography and a few commercial jobs for a few printing firms.
Firstly they are both cracking lenses the 2.8 is one stop quicker giving you chances to get shots you could'nt get with the f4 in low light animals, sports and weddings spring to mind. But shoot both lenses stepped down to F4 and you have to pixel peep or shoot slide film and use a loop and you will find the F4 is marginally sharper, Under normal viewing you will not see the difference.
The F4 has the better i.s system fitted 1 stop quicker i believe so if you are shooting static shots the F4 has a one stop advantage this negates the better maxium aperture of the 2.8 that said the 2.8 gives you better bokeh.
If i was shooting from the back of a boat the f4 is much better to use as it's lighter also the f4 is more compact so it will fit into a coat pocket handy if you are using a 600mm F4 i.s like i do.
Im not making a choice over the lenses as they both are good and i hope no one takes this the wrong way,
The Mk2 is awesome take it from me :D
Regards All
Richard
 
jonneymendoza said:
is the only difference between the f2.8 none IS and mk2 IS is the weather sealed and IS functionality?

For about 100 or £200 more i could get the F2.8 None IS lens
Click to expand...

I've read that the f/2.8L Mk2 out performs all the other canon 70-200 models (as it should being the most expensive).

But the f/2.8L non-IS is supposed to be a bit sharper than the f/2.8 IS model.
These differences in sharpness may not actually be field relevant though.

Honestly I think you should just pick the one with the aperture/IS/(lighter)weight or whatever you need out of this lens and don't worry about the image quality. They're all sharp lenses.
 
i would love the mk2 as its more versatile but the price is astonishing and im not a pro photographer lol.

i dont know if i can justify the price of the mk2 for my needs. i dont go out photographing every day. most during the summer only.

So this strap can hold the mk2 and a camera body with a battery grip fine?

is this strap really good? no cheap material that could snap and breag over 2k worth of gear?

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77546/show.html

in an idea world i would love a 70-200 f2.8 IS to be weighed the same as the f4 version :)
 
Last edited:
The black-rapid will easily hold a 70-200 f/2.8

I have the cheap version and it holds a 100-400 perfectly easily.

The weight of the camera is hanging on metal a rip-stop nylon, so nothing that'll break easily.
 
Sounds good. will get one then. Thanks.

One more question. i have a lowepro 350 backpack.

can that fit a f2.8 mk2 lens inside it?? i heard that the f4 can barely fit it and worried the f2.8 wont fit inside :(
 
Last edited:
whiteflyer said:
I thought you were joking until I saw your facebook post. :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

the 70-200 mkII better be as good as everyone says.. as sharp as the 135mm they say...having the 400 i didnt need the 300 accept for night matches at stanley so only being used now and then.. a lot of money for now and then but important for those times.. if the 70-200 will do the job at those times and do a job the rest of the yr as well then its a better use of the money

if i didnt have the 400 i wouldnt let go of this in a million years to be honest.. my wife has told me not to sell it..s he says i will regret it.. hmm
 
KIPAX said:
the 70-200 mkII better be as good as everyone says.. as sharp as the 135mm they say...having the 400 i didnt need the 300 accept for night matches at stanley so only being used now and then.. a lot of money for now and then but important for those times.. if the 70-200 will do the job at those times and do a job the rest of the yr as well then its a better use of the money

if i didnt have the 400 i wouldnt let go of this in a million years to be honest.. my wife has told me not to sell it..s he says i will regret it.. hmm
Click to expand...

You selling your mk2 lens?
 
KIPAX said:
I am selling my 300mm f2.8L lens to fund a 70-200 mkII
Click to expand...

I'd love to buy it from you, but I'd need to sell my Mk 1 70-200 f.28IS to fund it.

Why don't you hire a Mk II for a week to see how you get on with it first?

John
 
JohnStewart said:
Why don't you hire a Mk II for a week to see how you get on with it first?
Click to expand...

more expense and to be honest i am the kinda person who makes a decision and jumps straight in... I am starting to wobble though :(

anyone near accy with a 70-200 mkII i can play with for a day?: )
 
well i have the 2.8 mk2 i am a newbie without much idea but purchased this because its supposed to be the dogs

why is photography so difficult

if youre photos are great then u are using the right lens

we all wish we had a bit xtra
 
again i am still learning however, i also own a 70-200mk2 and from the limited knowledge and skill which i have this is a truely fantastic lens.
 
Why did KIPAX get suspended? Always seemed like a nice reasonable chap. :shrug:

milto said:
well i have the 2.8 mk2 i am a newbie without much idea but purchased this because its supposed to be the dogs

why is photography so difficult

if youre photos are great then u are using the right lens

we all wish we had a bit xtra
Click to expand...

You're a lucky 'newbie without much idea' to have such a great lens :eek:
 
well, a lot of wasted time on all these posts that seemed to wind people up!

Just got a canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS mk2 and I think its very good, recently sold a 70-200mmf4 IS.

Have tried a canon 2x mk3 converter with this lens and was pleased with the performance although it was purchased to be used mainly with my 300mm f2.8 IS mk2.

Many thanks to the contributers on here and the knowledge they share.:)
 
Last edited:
So .. i got my canon 70-200mkII

I sold my 300 2.8 is lens to fund it.. I ahve the 400 2.8 so the 300 wasnt getting used as much.. I decided the 70-200 mkII would do those jobs and more.. so out went the 300 and in came the 70-200


I also use a 135mm for sports and thought the 70-200 could replace that as well..


So using the 70-200 is great.. a lot heavier than the 135mm but more versatile and the pictures are as good in daylight...

But for me the 70-200 mkII fals short under extreme lighting conditions ...ie iso 6400 upwards.. iso 8000 or 12800 ... Its still a good lens and anyone using it will be happy even in those conditions... BUT its nowehere near as good as the 135mm in bad light high iso situations... nowhere near IMHO I shoot the 135mm at f2.8 and the pictures have less noise.. the AF is faster and its far more reliable to get the shots..


So all in all.. I miss the 300 but the 70-200 does its job and a lot more... I am so glad i didnt get rid of the 135 as I will use that for exterme bad light conditions.. Love the 70-200 mkII but it just doesnt quite hack it in one area...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top