Comparing Canon 70-200 f2.8 lenses

S

Set_Nights

Suspended / Banned
Messages
387
Edit My Images
Yes
I hired a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens over the weekend and I fell in love :love:!!! I currently have the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS but there was really no comparison between them. I now want/need a new lens :lol:! I will need to save my pennies a bit before I can justify buying one but I am looking at the:

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

Really what I am wondering is how much different/better is the II version of the IS lens compared to the first? Also does the IS make a huge difference in performance? I think I would go for an IS unless anyone can convince me differently but I don't know if it would be worth getting the II or if the lens I tried out would be good enough for me as I did really enjoy using it and either lens will be a big step up from my current lens.
 
markmullen said:
IS is good depending on what you're using it for, don't forget it won't help a moving subject. The other thing is that the IS lenses are weathersealed, the non-IS aren't but then neither is your 450d.
Click to expand...

Are there any actual benefits to having the non IS though other than the fact it is cheaper (other than long exposures where you can just turn IS off)?

Tbh I didn't realise about the weather sealing but if that is the case then the IS is sold to me for sure. My 450D may not be but it cost significantly less than this lens would :p.
 
Just a quick question to add to this thread, how does IS not help with moving objects, if panning at a motorsport such as drifting where slow shutter speeds are required surely IS helps?
 
IS helps to counter small movements of the lens which allows you to use a lower shutter speed before blur induced by camera movement becomes an issue.

Even the best IS cannot counter the large amount of movement used during panning, neither can it detect subject movement when holding the camera still. If you are using a low shutter speed and your subject is moving, the likelihood is that the subject will be blurred.

Having said that, some lenses have two IS modes, one of which can be used during panning, but is there to counter small up/down movements, not the side to side of the actual pan.
 
Last edited:
Set_Nights said:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
.
Click to expand...

All I can tell you is that I wasnt impressed wiht the canon 70-200 for low light work.. then I got the mkII version and its completly stunning.. its perfection :)
 
KIPAX said:
All I can tell you is that I wasnt impressed wiht the canon 70-200 for low light work.. then I got the mkII version and its completly stunning.. its perfection :)
Click to expand...

Well that makes me salivate a little :p. I hired the 70-200 to take photos at Crufts where the lighting was low and absolutely pants. It did make a significant difference compared to my own cheap zoom but quite a few of the images are noisier and less sharp than I would have liked. I am happy enough with my images but if the mkII is even better then it must be a pretty great lens!
 
The 70-200mm f/2.8 II is streets ahead of the Mk1
 
I have the canon 135mm f2 lens which i usualy used at f2.8 (f2 just a bit too thin most of time for me) .. Its a fantastic pin sharp lens and even when i got the mkII I took the 135 everywhere and it took me a few weeks to gradually come off the 135 and now I just use the mkII 70-200 all the time its that good... I will not part wiht the 135mm I hate to part wiht a pin sharp lens... but its getting dusty :)
 
KIPAX said:
I have the canon 135mm f2 lens which i usualy used at f2.8 (f2 just a bit too thin most of time for me) .. Its a fantastic pin sharp lens and even when i got the mkII I took the 135 everywhere and it took me a few weeks to gradually come off the 135 and now I just use the mkII 70-200 all the time its that good... I will not part wiht the 135mm I hate to part wiht a pin sharp lens... but its getting dusty :)
Click to expand...

I'm exactly the same!
 
IS is a no brainer. The IS versions are more expensive, but then they are completely different lenses - better optically, weather-sealed, have circular apertures etc.

The tricky choice for me is the f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS Mk2, the latter being twice the weight and double the price. The clincher is that the 2.8 Mk2 takes a 2x extender well (retains AF) and though it wasn't available when I bought the f/4 IS I think I'll be upgrading.

If you look at it that way, it's a very good way of getting 70-400mm f/2.8-5.6 in an affordable and manageable package. You can do so much with that :thumbs:
 
HoppyUK said:
IS is a no brainer. The IS versions are more expensive, but then they are completely different lenses - better optically, weather-sealed, have circular apertures etc.

The tricky choice for me is the f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS Mk2, the latter being twice the weight and double the price. The clincher is that the 2.8 Mk2 takes a 2x extender well (retains AF) and though it wasn't available when I bought the f/4 IS I think I'll be upgrading.

If you look at it that way, it's a very good way of getting 70-400mm f/2.8-5.6 in an affordable and manageable package. You can do so much with that :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd definitely be wanting the f/2.8 over the f/4.0. It is just a lot more versatile, for the above reasons as well as the fact that I like low light shooting!
 
Set_Nights said:
Well that makes me salivate a little :p. I hired the 70-200 to take photos at Crufts where the lighting was low and absolutely pants. It did make a significant difference compared to my own cheap zoom but quite a few of the images are noisier and less sharp than I would have liked. I am happy enough with my images but if the mkII is even better then it must be a pretty great lens!
Click to expand...

Sorry to say there is a fair chance your images would be no better with the F2.8 MkII then.

The noise is down to high ISO and the sharpness is going to be more down to low shutter speed & subject movement. Neither of which would be helped by the better glass.

I may of course be wrong - only a sample photo would allow us to determine the real reason.

but... the MkII is a belter of a lens. I had the Mk1 for a while and was underwhelmed by the performance but the mk2 is stellar.
 
I have just brought the 70-200 f2.8 is MKII after using my 70-200 f4 is for the last 6mths.

Doing an indoor dog show on Sunday, so I'm expecting great things
 
RichardtheSane said:
Sorry to say there is a fair chance your images would be no better with the F2.8 MkII then.

The noise is down to high ISO and the sharpness is going to be more down to low shutter speed & subject movement. Neither of which would be helped by the better glass.

I may of course be wrong - only a sample photo would allow us to determine the real reason.

but... the MkII is a belter of a lens. I had the Mk1 for a while and was underwhelmed by the performance but the mk2 is stellar.
Click to expand...

Yes, I had problems because the light was really low and I was trying to capture running dogs :cuckoo:! I think my shutter speeds were fine but I had to really bump the ISO to maintain them :(. As it was my first time using this body as well it was hard for me to know what ISO I could get away with (the viewfinder doesn't give a good indication it seems :p). This is just a general moan though rather than about the lens performance. I did think it was a great lens, definitely much better than my own "kit" zoom. What in particular is so much better about the MkII?
 
Set_Nights said:
Yes, I had problems because the light was really low and I was trying to capture running dogs :cuckoo:! I think my shutter speeds were fine but I had to really bump the ISO to maintain them :(. As it was my first time using this body as well it was hard for me to know what ISO I could get away with (the viewfinder doesn't give a good indication it seems :p). This is just a general moan though rather than about the lens performance. I did think it was a great lens, definitely much better than my own "kit" zoom. What in particular is so much better about the MkII?
Click to expand...

Here's why http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

It's the Mk1 vs Mk2, with a 2x extender which always sorts the men from the boys. Toggle arrow in the middle :)
 
It's the Mk1 vs Mk2, with a 2x extender which always sorts the men from the boys. Toggle arrow in the middle.

WOW ! That really shows the difference Richard.
Thanks for posting.

C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top