is there much difference between the 2 ? i have seen quite a few good deals on used L series lenses but not the II versions.
Printable View
is there much difference between the 2 ? i have seen quite a few good deals on used L series lenses but not the II versions.
Hi Stuart....any particular lens you are looking at? A good place to start would be the ISO 12233 comparisons on this website. Typically the "II" lenses are optically sharper, have better imagine stabilization and may be lighter. But it really depends on which set of lenses you are comparing.
ive seen 16-35 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8 at very decent prices . i got a tamron 17-50 f2.8 last week and its not quite as sharp as i had hoped. autofocus is super noisy too lol.
Stuart, you might just have to fine tune your tamron. Mine is crazy sharp and I prefer it to my 24-70 vI most of the time indoors. I did have to send my tamron to the factory 2 times but once it was adjusted, best standard zoom I have. It is going to be a shame to give it up when I eventually trade in my 7D for a full frame. But regarding your question. The II usually receives new coatings and usually has better micro contrast plus some internal upgrades. Usually the II is going to be much better than the version I. I don't have any point of reference, but rumblings from other forums suggest that Canon doesn't quite have the sharpness figured out on the UWA lenses like the Nikon versions, but when you reach the other way they are clearly the standard. That might be why your finding little difference in the 16-35mm's. Some of the others might have some better insight regarding your questions.
Edit: I suppose I should clear up a point. My Tammy is the non-vc version. It does have a noisy AF and it really does not play well when using video. Best manual focus then. The focus is almost as fast as my 24-70 but seems slower since it is noisy. I use my 24-70mm Ver I outside almost all the time since I am on the long end 9x out of 10. My tammy gets all its use inside.
70-200/2.8L IS (MkI), arguably the worst of the five Canon 70-200 zooms. 70-200/2.8L IS II, arguably the best zoom lens available. Ultrawide sharpness: 16-35 II > 17-40 > 16-35 MkI.
Hi Stuart,
I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC and not so great things about the Tamron 17-50 VC. Do you have the non-VC lens?
Regarding MI and MII. If you get a good deal on a 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I, I'd be very tempted by that lens. Keep in mind that 24 mm on a cropped sensor body isn't really that wide (59 degree Angle of View on crop sensor vs 84 degree AOV on FF).
General purpose lenses for a crop sensor body that I'd recommend include the EFS 17-55 and EFS 15-85. But I have read and seen great photos from the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. So, if that is the one you have, you may want to work with it a bit.
i have the non-VC. i will keep at it for a while with the tamron cause i already blew the budget on my latest purchases lol .
I may disagree with neuro on the quality of the 70-200 I - mine was excellent but with the upgrade of the II I have found it even better. Still my most used lens. I have just purchased the 24-70 2.8 II and am wow'ed!
What I find interesting is that not one of my customers notice the differences between the two - so if you have the cash and the desire go II but really, the quality is very good no matter which way you go. All depends on the end product, the customer, the cash flow, and your desire!
Happy clicking.
"Worst of the five 70-200 zooms" is relative, I was in no way suggesting the original 70-200/2.8 IS is a bad lens. The worst golfer on the PGA Tour is, by any objective standard, a far better golfer than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thom Deevers