rookie comparison of 70-200 mk 1 and mk 2

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[Brendan7]

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?

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Brendan7]

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.

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

[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?


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

[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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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