Canon and their various 70-200's

[nellyleelephant]

I currently have a 70-200 f4 non IS that I'd like to upgrade.

The question is, to which 70-200? Is the 70-200 2.8 IS ii worth the extra 600 over a used version i??

[RobDickinson]

Yes.

[nellyleelephant]

Bugger, I thought someone might say that!

[Chops45]

I also had the Canon 70-200 f4 non is, which is a very good lens even when used wide open at f4 my Camera being a Canon 5D mkii
If you do a lot of low light work and need to shoot at 1/30 sec the mkii lens will justify the extra cost.
Having now upgraded to a Canon 5D mkiii i can also increase the iso to 1250 and above and still get incredible shots.

[nellyleelephant]

I use my non IS for close up wildlife attached to either a 5d3 or 1d3, usually if something suddenly appears close up near the hide. I thought IS would be useful, maybe I should look at the image stabilised f4.

[rottie102]

RobDickinson said:

Yes.

Just checking - you do realise he's asking about 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk1 VS 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2, not whether is it worth it over 70-200mm f/4?

[Phunk]

Look up the Tamron version, I'd go for that.

Same IQ as the 70-200 IS 2.8

[RobDickinson]

rottie102 said:

RobDickinson said:

Yes.

Just checking - you do realise he's asking about 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk1 VS 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2, not whether is it worth it over 70-200mm f/4?

Yes

[rottie102]

RobDickinson said:

Yes

So what about it is worth 600 extra?

[RobDickinson]

Prime like image quality.

I'm not a big fan of the mk1 is. The non us is better as is the sigma os and tamron. It's. Not bad but quite irrelevant now.

[nellyleelephant]

So you'd choose the current non IS over the previous gen IS?

[revrange]

nellyleelephant said:

So you'd choose the current non IS over the previous gen IS?

In the same boat, i went to Jessops recently and tried both out.

The F4 is lighter and makes it a better carrier round lens and is tact sharp.

However the 2.8 IS Mk2 is just a tank of lens, but focuses quickly and excellent image quality (you expect) I see why pro's use this lens.

[nellyleelephant]

The weight doesn't bother me too much as it's not too bad.....

Maybe I should have a look at the 2.8 non IS.

[RobDickinson]

nellyleelephant said:

So you'd choose the current non IS over the previous gen IS?

I did.

[Chops45]

If you have a canon 5D mkiii you don't really need image stabilization as all you have to do is increase the iso so that you have a minimum shutter speed of 250 of a second unless you really need a aperture of 2.8 for a shallow depth of field

[Thunderace]

I've had a mk1 F2.8 IS for about 10 years. I bought it because I wanted F2.8 and IS and the consensus of reviews I read at the time suggested it was the best in its range having the beating of its stablemates and the Nikon version, particularly with full frame. Other reviews have different opinions, in reality there's probably FA difference between them unless you're photographing test charts. It's my most used and favourite lens.

It's a stonking lens, it was when it was new, has been throughout its life and isn't any less so now just because Canon chose to breed a new version. Just means the mk2 gets a 'stonking+' rating

A friend of mine has the mk2 and I've borrowed it, along with his 200-400. On A3 prints I'm buggered if I can tell the difference.

Personally I have no reason to upgrade. The mk1 does everything I want, it is excellent wide open, works well with the Canon 1.4 convertor with no noticeable loss of image quality and gives me excellent sharpness on 40 inch prints.

If I had to replace it though I'd almost certainly buy the mk2 as I'd be starting with the best again, with enhanced IS, and it would be shiny and new.

Anyone who's put of either of them by the weight needs to hand back their man card

[nellyleelephant]

Thunderace said:

Anyone who's put of either of them by the weight needs to hand back their man card

It's a baby!