Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review

  1. #1
    Administrator Bryan Carnathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Selinsgrove, PA USA
    Posts
    339

    Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    Discuss the <span class="PageTitle"][url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review[/url] - Tell us what you think of the <span class="PageTitle"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    763

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    $2500? really? I think it's a great lens and yes, Bryan, we should "get the II" but I don't think it's worth $700 more than the Mark I version. Big improvements were made but I'll find better things to do with my $700.

  3. #3
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    Looking at the ISO 12233 chart comparisonof the70-200mm MkII with 1.4x (280mm f/4)with the 300mm f/4L prime is very interesting - the 70-200mm zoom has virtually no loss in IQ compared to the prime! Trading 20mm for the flexibility of a zoom and a significantly improved IS system? Sure - I'll be'getting the II'!


    Then, the choice going out will be 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L or 70-200mm f/2.8 MkII with 1.4x TC. Bright days, 100-400mm. Dim days,70-200mm f/2.8 MkII (with 1.4x TC). As an added benefit, the latter combination gives a ~100-300mm f/4 zoom that with my 7D will provide a weather-sealed option.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    763

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    However, the 300 doesn't have the distortions of the 70-200 and costs less than half as much and is lighter.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    779

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    If I had the money to spend, and nothing else that was competing for that money (arrow shafts, bow strings and new limbs, electricity, tires, car payments, rent), sure, i'd go for the II version.


    But, I'm happy with the original, and for what it cost me, it was a relative bargain.


    If I fell into a bunch of money, I would certainly look at a II, but it would be after buying some other lenses (the super macro, a 50mm 1.4 (or if they made a 50mm f/1.2L that didn't have a focus problem), maybe a newer body, a few trips to places I'd like to go, etc...


    But, it's definitely cool that they'd make a telephoto zoom that good. I can't say there isn't some lust for it. But I lust over a lot of things! :P

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    327

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


    However, the 300 doesn't have the distortions of the 70-200 and costs less than half as much and is lighter.
    <div style="clear: both;"]</div>


    And let's not forget that AF is faster with the native lens than a lens with an extender attached. Also, I use the 1.4x II on the EF 300/4L IS and once you correct for the CA in post, it is really quite excellent. The 2x II + 70-200/2.8L IS II does not outperform the 1.4x II + 300/4L.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    1,273

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    Thank you Bryan, for your hard work. As I'm sure you know, your reviews are extremely useful to many of us. I tried comparing my 70-200 Mk II to the Mk I in controlled tests (I wanted to verify that I had something like copy 1 or 3, not copy 2... my results were not totally conclusive) and got some idea just how difficult and time consuming it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    Looking at the ISO 12233 chart comparisonof the70-200mm MkII with 1.4x (280mm f/4)with the 300mm f/4L prime is very interesting - the 70-200mm zoom has virtually no loss in IQ compared to the prime!

    As impressed as I am with the MkII, I have to disagree with you on this one. I think the 300 prime holds a clear advantage (as it had better). But I will say it is closer than I would have thought: comparing a zoom + TC to a prime is craziness.


    On the other hand, it looks to me like the Mk II actually outperforms the 200mm f/2.8 prime. (Samples 1 and 3 anyway... sample 2 actually does not look as good in
    the corners @ 200mm f 2.8 as the mark 1.) Now that is amazing. Yes, the prime is way less expensive, but primes are always less expensive and until now I can think of no case where any zoom outperforms a high quality prime.












  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    25

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    Yes, $2500... really!


    I received my Mk II a day before Bryan (*snickers*) and let me tell you as well... it is so worth the extra money. I know we'll each decide what we do with our money - and if you're happy with the results you get now with what you have, then so be it. I was too, but I am all about providing the best image quality I can to my clients. This new Mk II has so many improvements, it's already paid for itself.


    The first thing I thought when I upgraded from the 70-200 f/4 to the 2.8 IS Mark 1 was, "Now this is a lens!." I then repeated myself with the reception of this Mark II... it is a beauty. Solid as a rock, no image jitter from the IS kicking in, and virtually no audible noise from the IS motor. Sharp sharp sharp at 2.8 - and the improved IS capabilities are also pleasantly welcomed and very much appreciated.


    I did sell my Mk I to fund the Mk II, but I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. I'll be posting sample images in the near future. This lens is right up there with my 85L IMO... Yes, I love it that much. My 5D2 + 85L combo are probably never going to be topped and that is fine, but as long as lenses like the 70-200 Mk II rate right up there, I'm happy )

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    25

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


    However, the 300 doesn't have the distortions of the 70-200 and costs less than half as much and is lighter.
    <p style="CLEAR: both"]

    Not too relavent in comparison, IMO.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    293

    Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review



    It's detailed reviews like this that keep me coming back here often everyday, awesome review Bryan, simply awesome!


    As for the MKII, as much as I long for this lens, it seems that I'll just have to live with the MKI version. I just cannot justify the price difference especially here in Canada. The MKII retails for 2600 add 13% for taxes and we are now into the low 3000's. That 85 1.2L is starting to look very good at this price point! Selling the MKI would mean an additional 1500 would need to be added, which I may end up using towards the 24-70 or a telephoto lens or even a 7D upgrade.


    Unfortunately, my return on investment is a big fat 0 and as such, I'll continue to dream - maybe one day I'll win the lottery!


    I sure do envy those that have this lens!


    Canon 450D Gripped, Canon 24-105 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, Sigma 10-20 EX f/4-5.6, Canon S95

    “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” -Ansel Adams

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •