Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. Collapse Details
    Gen I versus II or III detail with Canon L lenses
    #1
    Default
    Has anyone noticed a significant increase in detail in for example a 70-200 2.8L in a version II or III versus the original version on C200 images?


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,860
    Default
    I've shot with the old EF 24-105mm IS and then bought the newer EF 24-105mm IS II for my C200. The new one looks noticeably better, sharper, although the contrast and colors seem similar.
    I shoot the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but haven't had a chance to shoot with the IS III version. All of the tests and resports say for that particular lens, not a very big difference. Since most of us shoot
    still lenses on our C200s most of the time, I always take what reviewers say and then dilute the effect by about 50% since we're shooting video and not stills. Stills really amplify the differences
    between similar lenses, they are more exacting and precise to see differences.

    I can report that I've shot stills with some of my Canon lenses, cheap ones, like my EF S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and I was appalled how crappy the stills the looked, whereas in daylight exteriors,
    shooting RAW, the results were acceptable, if not impressive. Video is so much lower resolution than stills. If I had the money, I would still buy the CN-E 18-80 t/4.4 compact zoom, that lens on the
    C200 looked great. I couldn't use it on everything because it's so slow but it keeps DPAF and IS, unlike a true cine lens and if you light stuff, it looks great. It's a very appealing lens for the C200 if
    you have a chance to rent one. I've seen some good deals for some lightly used ones too, under $3k.
    Last edited by puredrifting; 08-25-2019 at 07:02 AM.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    Posts
    569
    Default
    Tony Northrup says the 70-200 III flares less than the II. I quite like how the II flares though.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,860
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by drummondb View Post
    Tony Northrup says the 70-200 III flares less than the II. I quite like how the II flares though.
    I think the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a very special lens that really, with good quality video, looks almost as good as cine lenses that cost ten or twenty times as much.
    It's a classic, I will keep mine as long as I am shooting Canons or other cameras with adapters that it works with.
    I tested the CN-E 70-200 t/4.4 when it came out and it's a nice lens but I think the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II looks just as good, is faster, and costs less than half the price.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member indiawilds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    1,286
    Default
    I am fully satisfied with my Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens. Also, the reviews didn't mention great difference. So haven't felt the need to look at the version III. I had used the EF 70-200 f2.8 without IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS version I. Each version is better than the previous.

    The 100-400 version 2 is better than the version 1. Version 2 is sharper. The version 1 also had inconsistent quality.

    I wish that Canon comes out with a cine IS full frame version of the lenses. I am also asked to do still photography. So having lenses that can work for both stills and video is important. I don't want s-35 version to be mated to a full frame camera by mistake.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member cpreston's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,319
    Default
    My understanding is that the 70-200 III isn't noticeably better than the II. I've found the 24-70 f/2.8 II to be a more pleasing lens to use than the 24-70 f/2.8 I or the 28-70 f/2.8 and matches the qualities of the 70-200 f/2.8 II better than the older versions. I still have the 16-35 f/2.8 II and I rarely use it. Even on a crop frame the image just doesn't compare to the II versions of the other L lenses at f/2.8. I had a 20-35 f/2.8 L that was actually better in my opinion. At some point. I need to upgrade to the 16-35 f/2.8 III so that I can start using the wider angles again without feeling like the image suffers.


    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
  •