Diff b/w mk 1 and 2 - canon 70-200 2.8 L

N

naveen.nag

Messages
214
Name
Naveen
Edit My Images
No
I always have my dream lens "canon 70-200 2.8 L IS" on the back of my mind. I am saving up to buy one maybe in next few months.

Had a query for all you canon gurus.

I notice that the mk1 version is far more affordable than the mk2. Obviously in terms of quality mk2 would be better, but my question is, is the difference between the 2 very sigificant? In other words, what is difference between the 2, could someone highlight this pls?

I presume, mk1 would still be a very good choice (am i right?). Btw, i am not a pro, and i shoot purely for my pleasure. So its not for commercial purposes.

Thanks
 
I have used them both.

The Mk1 while an excellent lens, I found was a little underwhelming when used wide open.

The Mk2 is blisteringly sharp wide open, has a better image stabiliser and also works very well when coupled with the Mk3 T-cons. (The Mk1 is a bit shonky with a 2x).
 
It's the slow advance of technology. I can remember reading articles about how the 70-200 was amongst the best zoom lenses available, how it was as good as a prime and all that.

Move on a few years and it's been improved in every way, it doesn't make the old one worse - but it does acknowledge that the old one was worse relative to modern expectations.

You have to view others opinions objectively, every loud voice on the internet will tell you that every single current Canon crop camera is rubbish at high ISO's. But what's this compared to? and how can it be useful information to someone who wants to buy a new crop body and has a bag full of Canon glass? Answer - it's useless opinion. Good only to fill column inches in forums.

In short - if you can afford the new one - then buy it. Personally if I couldn't afford the new Mk II I'd probably buy a 2nd hand Mk I and wait till I could afford the Mk II. These lenses are built to last and a 2nd hand one will perform as well as a new one, and when you come to sell it, the cost of ownership will have been tiny.
 
I agree with both Richard and Phil.

The mkI is a lovely lens but it isn't great wide open and especially not when wide open at 200mm (it is still good, just not great).

The mkII looks great no matter what you do with it.

But no doubt a mkIII will make it look mediocre...
 
Difference? You will think the mk1 is the best lens you ever owned, until you use the mk2 ;)
 
I hired a MKI to see how I got on with it (I only had a 24-70 f/2.8L) and I loved it.

I ended up buying a MKII as I managed to get a cracking deal on a new one and I love it.
 
Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS runs the Canon Mk2 very close, at half the price. Good lens, with telecons too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top