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.