Canon 70-200mm IS f/2.8 I vs.II

DDirector

New member
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?
 
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.
 
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/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-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/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8-l-is-usm/
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top