How good is the older mk1 70-200 f2.8 IS?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been on the lookout for one of these but the newer one and have seen quite a few older versions. How good is this lens? Would I be better waiting for the MK2 to appear in the classifieds or will i be more than happy with this old boy?

It's for portraiture and will be used on a 5d mk2. I have read it's not the sharpest at 200mm but i can't see me using that too much for portraits(i could be wrong though). I have only ever used the 70-200F4L and the 2.8 NON IS so is it similar or better than these?

Regards

Scott
 
I have it and think it's great but if it's only for portraits and you can live with the focal length I'd get the 135mm f2 , it will knock your socks off :-)
 
I take it you mean the Canon lens? The reality is they are all excellent and you can't go wrong with any of them. In fact, that extends to pretty much all manufacturers 70-200 mm lenses, I don't think anyone makes a bad one :)
 
Last edited:
stumac said:
I have it and think it's great but if it's only for portraits and you can live with the focal length I'd get the 135mm f2 , it will knock your socks off :)
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I was thinking of going for the 135 and sigma 85 instead of the newer 70-200
 
It's a historical thing.

The mk1 canon 70-200 IS and the 24-70L were amongst the best zoom lenses ever made, with very few complaints. Then the mk2 versions came along and all of a sudden the old versions are 'inferior'.
 
Kinda thought it must have been very good if it was used for so long as portrait and wedding lens. Cheers Phil. I'm actually thinking the savings from the old one could get me another good prime or another set of lights if required.
 
I have the older one 2.8 IS, and can't fault it.
They are selling < £700 and typifies a bargain.

Save the £300 and get y'self one of those lovely primes as well ....
 
iv'e had the mk1 non is and have the mk1 is version and there both excellent lenses but if i was buying today without already owning the mk1 i would buy the mk2
the reason is it's a better lens and the extra 300 quid or so is worth it in my opinion
iv'e been undecided weather to sell the mk1 to purchase a mk2 for the improvement

with either lens i don't think you would be dissapointed
 
Cheers guys. I'm still thinking about the primes but there's nothing coming up in the classifieds so fingers crossed.
 
i have the mk1 70-200 non is and think its a belter of a lens even today, i also have the mk1 24-70 if your on a tight budget there both still a very good buy
 
Rab you're amassing more gear than Jessops !!! I'm not sure if I sold you the 70-200 non IS as I used to own one too and liked it but I wasn't sure if the mk1 IS was better. I have never tried any of the 24-70L's at all so good to know that they're highly regarded.

I'm really only trying to decide now between the IS versions of the zoom or just going down the 50mm Sigma Art, 85mm Sigma and/or the Canon 135L lens. I need to get my finger out though as ideally I'd like a month to get used to these before my course begins as i'll have enough to keep me occupied without bothering about quirks in my gear.

On a side note I used my Olympus 75mm a couple of days ago in an old school gym hall at a nursery graduation and it performed amazingly well. It's a hell of a lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top