rookie comparison of 70-200 mk 1 and mk 2

[Brendan7]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[alexniedra]

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.

[LoneSierra]

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]

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[abrama94]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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!

[abrama94]

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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.