rookie comparison of 70-200 mk 1 and mk 2

I've spent some time recently comparing the old 70-200 f/2.8 IS with the Mk 2 which I got last Tuesday. Normally I don't like to spend my time shooting test charts, but then normally I don't pay a premium for IQ. (For example, I bought the 135mm f/2 L because of its focal length and f/ number, not for the IQ).


This time, I paid a large premium for the Mk II over the Mk I, in part because I expected the Mk II to have better IQ. Normally I would have just let Bryan's work be the last word, but his first two samples of the lens were so different, I wanted to know which one mine was more like. While his first copy looks better to me than the 200mm f/2.8 prime, his second copy doesn't even look as sharp in the corner as the Mk I. Big difference, especially when paying such a premium.


So I made some comparisons. I threw in a comparison with the 135 f/2 for perspective. I don't have a fancy chart, so I just printed one out. I did my best to level the chart, but I focused separately for the different regions of the chart because I was sure I didn't get it exactly level (and indeed, in pictures where I focused on one corner, the others are not always in focus). I took several shots of each region of each chart with each lens and took the best in each chase. I shot manual mode with a flash, 1/1000 sec @ iso 100 with a 2 second timer. I did not use mirror lockup.


My idea was that I was fully prepared to return my lens if it turned out to be a lemon (like Bryan's sample #2).


Here are my results:


Upper left corner:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/Mk-1-ul.jpg[/img]


Mk 1 200mm @ f/2.8 upper left corner





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/Mk-2-ul.jpg[/img]


Mk 2 200mm @ f/2.8 upper left corner





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/135-ul.jpg[/img]


135mm f/2 L @ f/2.8 Upper left corner


To me, the clear winner is the 135mm f/2. The Mk 2 looks about as sharp as the Mk 1, but maybe with better contrast and with less color.


Just for fun (and because I was being really anal) I tried a different corner, the lower right:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/Mk-1-lr.jpg[/img]


Mk 1 200mm @ f 2.8 lower right





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/Mk-2-lr.jpg[/img]


Mk 2 200mm @ f/2.8 lower right





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/135-lr.jpg[/img]


135mm f/2.8 lower right


In the lower right corner, it looks to me like the Mk 2 delivers the promised improved IQ, though still not as good as the 135.


So... is my lens a lemon? I'm curious for your opinions, but my feeling is no. It does produce better IQ in all tested regions of the picture (though just barely in the upper left corner). I also tested the center, and as expected, Mk 1 < Mk 2 < 135 (didn't post that because I didn't want to make people wait forever for the images to load)


My impression after using the lens for a week is, actually, that I love the lens and that it does deliver better contrast and sharpness than the Mk 1, and that the IS does indeed work better (I've taken several pictures with 1/10 sec @ 200mm).


And, lest you think I spend all my time shooting charts, here are some sample pics taken with the lens:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/sarah-200mm-f-2p8.jpg[/img]


200mm @ f/2.8 1/125 iso1600





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/sarah.jpg[/img]


70mm @ f/4 heavily cropped iso1600 1/60 sec





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/nathan.jpg[/img]


200mm @ f/4 iso 400 1/80 sec





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.comparo/nathan-2.jpg[/img]


200mm @ f/5.6 iso 400 1/100 sec.


Comments welcome.

While this lens is awesome, I am questioning its value compared to the Mark I. For $2500 I could buy the 24-70, 70-200 f/4 IS AND an 85mm f/1.8 when I need the fast aperture. Which would you rather have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

While this lens is awesome, I am questioning its value compared to the Mark I. For $2500 I could buy the 24-70, 70-200 f/4 IS AND an 85mm f/1.8 when I need the fast aperture. Which would you rather have?

---

Hi Brendan,


I think your comparison is a little flawed - if you're questioning the value compared to the MkI, for the price of the MkI you could get the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the85mm f/1.8 with some cash left over (almost enough for a 35mm f/2, even!).


One thing that does leap out of your comparison is the70-200mm f/4L IS, which is clearly sharper and has better IS compared to the f/2.8 IS MkI lens. Now, with the optical and IS improvements of the MkII, the f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 IS MkII comparison really boils almost entirely down to aperture. Is that one f-stop worth paying twice as much for the lens? Then again, the 300mm f/2.8L is three times the cost of the 300mm f/4L - is that worth it?


I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII clearly superior to the MkI version of the lens, in multiple ways - but individually, none of those ways are hugely significant. Taken together, I'm not convinced it would be worth upgrading from the MkI to the MkII, but for someone without any of the (5!) possible Canon 70-200mm lenses, I think the f/2.8 IS MkII is the best choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

but for someone without any of the (5!) possible Canon 70-200mm lenses, I think the f/2.8 IS MkII is the best choice

---

True, but I don't think a slight increase in sharpness and 4-stop IS (vs 3 stop) is worth $700! For people with tight(er) budgets (like me) the Mark I is probably the way to go. That's too high a premium and I think the price of the Mark I will drop further, making it an ever better buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

if you're questioning the value compared to the MkI

---

I'm comparing it to the Mark II. Since the difference between the 70-200 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f4 IS is entirely aperture, why not buy the 70-200 f/4 IS and then, heck, maybe even an 85mm f/1.2? Or an 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm macro?


I think this is a very debatable topic and that the value of this new lens will vary for different photogs.


brendan

Jon, if it's not too much more trouble, post similar shots with the Mk 1, so we can compare. Brendan is right about the big increase in cost. Is it worth it?


Edit: I meant photos of the faces. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

The main reason I say the II isn't worth it is that the Mark I wasn't a bad lens. The Mark II is just better. How much? Not enough to justify a $700 cost increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

The main reason I say the II isn't worth it is that the Mark I wasn't a bad lens. The Mark II is just better. How much? Not enough to justify a $700 cost increase.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Agreed.

I agree as well, based on my shooting style. Although I must point out that the cost increase is subjective - Some people find it worth it, while some people think the upgrade is not practical or justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

For $2500 I could buy the 24-70, 70-200 f/4
IS AND an 85mm f/1.8 when I need the fast aperture. Which would you
rather have?

---

That all depends. If I could have *only* the three lenses you
mentioned or *only* the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk II, I would be crazy not to take the
three lenses. But that wasn't the choice I was presented with. I have
the 85 f/1.8 and 24-105 f/4 IS already. I'm not looking for more
breadth.


The question I wanted to answer was "does the 70-200 deliver as expected?". The question "is it worth the money?" is something no one can answer for anyone else.


I find the IS to be a big improvement, the AF to be slightly faster and quieter, and the decreased MFD to be more useful than expected (I take a lot of pictures close to the MFD of the old lens). My controlled comparisons showed a definite improvement in sharpness in three of four corners and in the center at 200mm f/2.8 (and a questionable improvement in the final corner). Bryan's comparisons seemed to show an even greater improvement than mine. I don't think anyone should have expected more from this lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Jon, if it's not too much more trouble, post similar
shots with the Mk 1, so we can compare. Brendan is right about the big
increase in cost. Is it worth it?

---

Worth it to me. I was considering the upgrade even before I knew how much better the IQ would be, simply because of the better IS and the MFD. I use the 70-200 a lot, and often in low light.


It's tough to find comparable pictures with the Mk I, and under less than controlled conditions I don't think comparisons mean much, especially at web sizes. (This is, in part, why I usually don't pay a premium for IQ.)


But here are the closest two I could find,.both taken with the Mk 1. Different day, different lighting, different lens. Same kid. I don't think they reveal any difference between the lenses. But I could find samples taken with the 24-104 zoom that look appear as sharp or sharper than other samples taken with the 135mm f/2.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.5d+first+10000/nathan-red.JPG[/img]


140mm f/2.8 iso 500 1/640





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.5d+first+10000/nathan-bw.JPG[/img]


200mm f/2.8 iso 100 1/320

There are a few things I want to add (my first post was done sort of in a rush, I had to pick up my daughter from school :) )


In doing my tests, I learned a lot about how difficult it is to do controlled comparisons of lenses. I gained a great deal of appreciation for the collection of ISO crops
Bryan has amassed and have become even more grateful for his work. On my first try, I taped the ISO chart to a shed outside and took pictures on a tripod. I tested a number of lenses at different times of the day. I knew different lighting could affect perception of sharpness, but I had no idea how much. Tests done in the morning looked soft compared to those done in the afternoon. To do it right, I decided I had to move my operation inside and use a flash for lighting. (Bryan uses several flashes... I forget how many but I think at least 4).


Another problem I had was getting the optical axis perpendicular to the ISO chart, or in other words, lining up the focal plane with the chart. Bryan describes a very involved method of doing this using expensive equipment that I don't have. I just taped the chart to the wall, leveled the camera with a bubble level, and squared it relative to the wall with a square. This wasn't good enough. Sometimes it worked okay, but sometimes corners would be blurry when I focused on the center, or if I focused on one corner, the others would be oof.


I even found that pictures shot at different ISO appeared to have different IQ. So for my final test, I shot ISO 100, manual mode, and made chose "neutral" picture style (all settings, including sharpness, set to 0).


The final surprise was what appeared to me very different results in different corners. As I said, the lenses didn't look that different in the upper left corner, but in the lower right, I thought the Mk 2 is much closer in quality to the 135mm f/2 than to the Mk 1.


The question "which lens has better IQ" or even "how much better is lens A than lens B" are not simple ones. I restricted myself to 200mm f/2.8 (for the 70-200's... obviously the 135 mm, for comparison sake, was 135mm f/2.8). I can hardly imagine doing all this work at several focal lengths and several f/ numbers for every canon lens made. (!)


All of this begs the question: if it is so difficult to detect differences in controlled conditions, how much is it really worth to have the best possible sharpness? I think question is a valid one. Of course, if one plans to crop heavily, one really does what to get the best sharpness possible. But much of the time, the ISO chart isn't the final word. Bokeh, color, and contrast are differences one does not need to be a pixel peeper to see. I didn't compare bokeh, but I do find color and contrast on the Mk 2 to be an improvement (but then I tend to be very suspicious of such subjective comparisons). The advantage of ISO comparison is that they are objective. It almost seems axiomatic that the more useful the parameter you're comparing, the more subjective the result. One does one's best.

<div>


If I were just buying a 70-200 I'd get the mkII but I definitely won't be upgrading. I paid $1500 a year ago for my 2.8 IS with rebate. To me the mkII is definitely not a $1000 worth of a difference. The IS seems to be a big selling point but being able to shoot at 1/25 or so isn't all that appealing to me. I was shooting an indoor event tonight with my 70-200 2.8 IS mostly @ 200mm, ISO 1600 2.8 and 1/40th. When someone was very still I was completely happy with sharpness but at 1/40th of a second you aren't stopping much movement. Hand movement and even the slightest head movement shows up.


I'm sure someone will have an instance where &lt;1/40th @200mm is of value but not for me.
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

I'm comparing it to the Mark II. Since the difference between the 70-200 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f4 IS is entirely aperture, why not buy the 70-200 f/4 IS and...an 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm macro?

---

<div>


Well, for one thing, because I already have an EF 85mm f/1.8 and an EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L Macro IS USM. [:D]


But,70-200 f/2.8 II vs. 70-200 f4 IS plus $1300 to spend on something else (I'm thinking the EF 35mm f/1.4L) is a very, very relevant debate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

If I were just buying a 70-200 I'd get the mkII

---

</div>


Which is the way I'm leaning right now, since I don't have any of the 70-200 zooms, and I'd rather make the best choice, the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

But,70-200 f/2.8 II vs. 70-200 f4 IS plus $1300 to spend on something else (I'm thinking the EF 35mm f/1.4L) is a very, very relevant debate...
<div>

---

</div>


Have you ever shot with the 35 1.4L? If you haven't you need to before you decide. The 35 will probably be the deal breaker. It has brought a tear to my eye on occasion.


If I didn't have to shoot night time and indoor sports I think I'd rather own the 70-200 4.0 IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

The main reason I say the II isn't worth it is that the Mark I wasn't a bad lens. The Mark II is just better. How much? Not enough to justify a $700 cost increase.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Definitely second that. I just got my first L lens, the MK I 70-200mm 2.8 IS a week ago. The thing takes phenominal pictures. Auto focus is lighting quick, and IS is very good. Would one more stop, a little less flaring, and a (seemingly very) marginal increase in sharpness worth me kissing $700 goodbye? On my budget, no way. If I weren't concerned about cost, I'd have waited, sure, but I'm tickled pink with my MK I and I know she'll serve me good for a long time.


Or until I make it big, and then upgrade [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoneSierra

and a (seemingly very) marginal increase in sharpness worth me kissing $700 goodbye?

---

It may not seem like much from my data, but in Bryan's more carefully done comparison, the difference is dramatic.


Of course, by dramatic, I don't really mean dramatic. After all, in most situations with prints less than 8x10, I don't think the difference sharpness difference between a decent zoom and an phenomenal prime is that noticeable unless you crop. But if you want that extra sharpness, I don't think $700 is too much of a premium to pay for it. According to Bryan's images, the Mk II actually beats out some primes, and even with extenders it compares well with the 100-400 zoom. It is definitely worth $700 to someone who, as a result of the better IQ, does not feel the need to buy a 100-400 zoom. (The 100-400 zoom is of course still better at 400mm IMO, but at 300mm they're close).


I'm not sure if my lens is less sharp than the two sharp samples Bryan tested, or if the difference has more to do with testing conditions. Therin lies what I find most disturbing about the expensive lens (and the only reason I went through all this trouble): sample variation.


Anyhow- I agree that the Mk 1 is a wonderful lens. It is in fact only because the Mk 1 has been my favorite lens for years that I was willing to pay a premium for the upgrade.

I had the Mark I, but sold it a couple of days ago for 1500 and now am planning to upgrade to the Mark II. I currently own the 10-22mm, 24-105mm, and the 100mm is macro.


My big reason to upgrade is that with the 2X extender (for high school sports andwildlife)the image seems to be better than the Mark I and compares favorably to the 100-400mm (less so but still comparable to the 400mm f/5.6). Also, the new lens with the improved IS, in my opinion, obviates the need for the 85mm f/1.8 for low light photography.


Ifeel this 4 lens combination is more than sufficient for my needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abrama94

My big reason to upgrade is that with the 2X extender (for high school sports andwildlife)the image seems to be better than the Mark I and compares favorably to the 100-400mm (less so but still comparable to the 400mm f/5.6).

---

I do agree that the MkII seems to give much better results with the extenders than the MkI. But, be a little cautious about judging the performance with extenders across the zoom range - at least in Bryan's tests, the extenders are only tested at the longest end of the zoom. In other words, you can't see what a 70-200mm + 2x looks like at 200mm (i.e. with the zoom ring set to 100mm) - performance may not be consistent across the zoom range. Unless you're planning on swapping the t/c off and on during a hike or a game (not easy), I'm honestly not sure how the MkII as a 140-400mm f/5.6 zoom would compare to the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 when each is used across their range. I'd actually really like to know the results of such a comparison!

While I agree that performancemaybe "inconsistent across the zoom range", I am willing to sacrifice some sharpness for the versatility offered with the 2X (and I agree swapping extenders is not easy and increases the chance for dropping something.).


I would also like to see such a comparison.


Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

do agree that the MkII seems to give much better results with the extenders than the MkI. But, be a little cautious about judging the performance with extenders across the zoom range - at least in Bryan's tests, the extenders are only tested at the longest end of the zoom.

---

Personally, I prefer cropping to extenders. Sure, you lose megapixels, but if I crop the 70-200, I still get a 400mm 5 megapixel image, and there is no additional loss of IQ due to the extender iteself (though this may be negligable for all I know).


If cropping is your "extender", there is never a need to do it except at the long end. This is why for me, IQ at the long end is most important.