Mk1 or Mk2, IS or Not 70-200?

J

john182rs

Messages
345
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry I know I have asked this before, But I still need a little help on this.

From what I can work out on this forum so far, that the Canon L series lens of the 70-200 comes in Mk1 and Mk2 with and without IS.

Now how do I tell between the Mk1 and Mk2?
Does the Mk1 70-200 IS just as good as the Mk2.
Does the Mk1 70-200 non IS perform just as good as the Mk2.

Is the difference between them a world apart?
Will a newbie like me notice the difference?

I will be mainly shooting icehockey indoors so it will be the 2.8, as ice hockey is the players and pucks move at a fair speed but I will be wanting to take pictures of people stood still but not portrait type, just at a distance.

I do have shakey hands so will the IS be very important.
I have been told the IS is no good for some thing moving.

I should be buying a 7D soon aswell, just getting that little bit of a difference from the 50D.

Was also told by some one with having a high fps on the 7D that I should be able to get a steady image without the IS when some ones not moving.

Appologies for all the questions, the difference between the mk2 IS and non IS is £1000 apart.
An I think I have seen Mk1's with IS for the same price as a new Mk2 non IS.
SO potentially I could save one hell of a lot of money, although dont mind finding them few extra pennies if im going to benefit from having the newer bigger lens.
 
None IS is sharper than the mk1 IS, mk1 IS is a good lens
but I find the mk2 a stunning lens and it even handles the 2X very well and at f2.8 its razor sharp unlike the mk1
 
So the mk2 f2.8 non IS will i still get crystal images or might there still be some sort of haze.
 
I only know of one version of the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. It is sharp, but some tests do not show it as sharper than the 70-200 IS MkI despite the 'common knowledge' that it is sharper.

The 70-200 IS MkI is a great lens, and is pretty sharp wide open through much of the range, but I tended to stop down to f/3.2 at the long (200mm) end to get the very best from it. It is good with the 1.4 II extender, but poor IMO with the 2x.

The 70-200 IS MkII is a stunning lens and is super sharp wide open throughout. It is so sharp that it takes the 2x II extender very well and even equals/beats prime lenses on sharpness.

HTH

Phil
 
Last edited:
Some say non-IS is sharper than mk1 IS. I've tried a couple mk1 IS and they are plenty sharp.

I suspect you will be using a monopod to support the camera for the match, so that would replace IS. Fast action would negate the benefits of IS anyway.

It is your choice after all.
 
To answer your question directly I definitely think it is worth getting the mkII version, but I certainly would prefer the mkI IS to a non-IS version - I find the IS makes a huge difference as shutter speeds drops.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
To answer your question directly I definitely think it is worth getting the mkII version, but I certainly would prefer the mkI IS to a non-IS version - I find the IS makes a huge difference as shutter speeds drops.

Phil
Click to expand...
I agree, if you can handle the price of the mk2 then go for it, there is no mk2 none IS.
 
malla1962 said:
I agree, if you can handle the price of the mk2 then go for it, there is no mk2 none IS.
Click to expand...

Ah right, i was lead to believe there is a mk2 of both versions.
Finally, if i look for the 70-200 f2.8 non IS lens less than a year old, should£900 cover it?
Yes i will be using a monopod, i got one from a chap on here.
 
Personally I'd go for the mk2 IS, the IS is excellent...AF is also stunningly quick with the 7D and you may be shooting a lot of the time without a monopod for the fast action.

For me, if you can afford it, 7D and new 70-200 mk2 with a possibility of a 1.4 extender is the bee's knees.
George
 
I am £600 short of buying a new mk2 IS 70-200.

If i can sell some bits i have and raise the money then yes i will go for the IS version, but if not i think i might be getting a new 70-200 non IS then maybe in a few months after it i will get the IS version or buy a prime.
 
I would save up for the MkII IS, you never know the price may drop a bit over the next few months so you can afford it sooner but if you buy the non IS then you will always wish you had waited. I know lenses don't depreciate too much but your going to loose a few hundred quid. Better to wait and buy what you want first time round.
 
john182rs said:
I am £600 short of buying a new mk2 IS 70-200.

If i can sell some bits i have and raise the money then yes i will go for the IS version, but if not i think i might be getting a new 70-200 non IS then maybe in a few months after it i will get the IS version or buy a prime.
Click to expand...

I'd save for a bit longer, hope the price drops a little as well over the next few months - I think you might be "what if .., wish i had ...." if you buy the non IS and really want the mark II
 
The other question you need to ask yourself is how much you really need f/2.8. The f/4 IS is very nearly as sharp as the f/2.8 mk2 and is £1k cheaper!
 
Ah that's a fair point - if you're going to be shooting in low-light conditions then the f/2.8 would certainly help. I just mentioned it as not everyone really needs the extra stop - I upgraded from the f/4 IS to the f/2.8 IS last year, courtesy of Phil above and have just downgraded again as I don't really need the f/2.8. Don't regret the initial upgrade though nor the experience of owning the f/2.8 for a year :)
 
Think i might start looking for a non IS version then maybe in 6months or so look at a brand new IS one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top