Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. Collapse Details
    Canon 70-200mm IS f/2.8 I vs.II
    #1
    Senior Member DDirector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,661
    Question
    Im wondering what the difference is between the mki and mkii.
    Is there a big difference between the two?

    The mkI goes for a lot cheaper. But is it worth the extra $ for the mkII?
    Michael Frymus
    Travel and Commercial Photographer & Videographer

    Instagram: @michaelfrymus
    Website: mfvisuals.ca



    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4
    Default
    The mkII is worth every of the many pennies it costs, the 1st one due to it's age not so much. Didn't like the ancient stabilisation, longitudal CA. Also shifting focus ever so slightly. For stills, I would be happy with it though.
    I really love my old Sigma 50-150, because its so compact and light, and delivers in IQ as well.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member indiawilds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    1,322
    Default
    You can use the version 1 as it is cheaper. However, the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is worth its price. It is perhaps one of the cheapest and best 4k lenses around. I shoot with it all the time. I had done a review sometime back. You can see it here: http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/cano...ii-usm-review/
    Some of the broadcasters like HBO mention this lens in their recommended kit to shoot. Can't sing enough praise of the 70-200 IS II lens.

    For my views on the 70-200 f2.8 version 1 you can see here: http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/cano...f2-8-l-is-usm/


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member Andrius Simutis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,133
    Default
    The 70-200 2.8 IS II is magical.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member CinematicFanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    140
    Default
    All depends on what you need it for. Simple as that really ...

    For video use, the occasional shots I need a 70-200mm. I went for the Canon fitment Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 VC (with stabilization). And I have to admit, I am so glad I didn't spend silly money on the Canons as I am more than happy with it on my FS700.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member Andrius Simutis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,133
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by CinematicFanatic View Post
    All depends on what you need it for. Simple as that really ...

    For video use, the occasional shots I need a 70-200mm. I went for the Canon fitment Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 VC (with stabilization). And I have to admit, I am so glad I didn't spend silly money on the Canons as I am more than happy with it on my FS700.
    But is it magical?


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member egproductions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NJ/NYC
    Posts
    2,807
    Default
    Image stabilization is much better and minimum focusing distance it much closer. It's a great lens.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member henryqiu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC -> HK
    Posts
    286
    Default
    As far as I know, here are the "major" differences:

    1) Mark I: sharpness is reduced on crop-sensor cameras such as 7D. Mark II: sharpness is reduced mainly at the minimum focal distance.
    2) Mark I: IS = 3-stops. Mark II: IS = 4 stops
    3) Mark I: price used to be around US$1,600. Mark II: around US$2,200 more or less

    As for distortion, chromatic aberration, build quality, etc., the two are nearly identical.

    Both lenses are exceptionally good. Technically Mark II has to be better and is indeed better. But in the real world, which is better really depends. For example, as this is quite a big heavy lens, I doubt you want to shoot video without mounting it on a tripod (or at least on some support). That makes the improved IS on Mark II practically worthless. In fact, many went for the non-IS versions for they believe the extra money for IS would be wasted if the lens is used on a tripod.
    * * *
    Canon 5D III & 7D, 8-15L, 16-35L II, 24L II, 35L, 40STM, 50L, 85L II,
    24-105L, 70-200 f2.8L IS, 100 macro, 100-400L
    Rode NTG-3 / NT4 / NT2000 / VideoMic Pro, AT 4053b,
    Sennheiser G3 kit | MixPre-D | Tascam DR-680/70D, Sony M10
    Sennheiser HD 25-I II | Glidecam HD 2000 | Panasonic TM700K | GoPro Hero2


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member indiawilds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    1,322
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by henryqiu View Post
    Technically Mark II has to be better and is indeed better. But in the real world, which is better really depends. For example, as this is quite a big heavy lens, I doubt you want to shoot video without mounting it on a tripod (or at least on some support). That makes the improved IS on Mark II practically worthless. In fact, many went for the non-IS versions for they believe the extra money for IS would be wasted if the lens is used on a tripod.
    There have been many instances where I have filmed handheld with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens without tripod. You can see some of those examples here

    Apart from wildlife, while shooting for sports documentary for HBO, I realised that the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is also strongly recommended by them. I really love this lens.


    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

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