70-200 MkI vs MkII

[ManWearPants]

For those who have owned the MkI and now the MkII, kindly share your thought in the improvements of the MkII over the MkI. While it is noted that there is improvements over IS to 4 stop and is sharp wide open. Are there any other notable improvements

- how much is the flare control improved?
- is the colour saturation improved?
- how is the OoF rendering? does MFD of 1.2m means the bokeh is more diffused?

any other improvements?

 

[rendition]

the-digital-picture.com has a decent review on this lens... and also comparison with the mk1.

 

[ManWearPants]

the-digital-picture.com has a decent review on this lens... and also comparison with the mk1.

Thanks for the link. Does any owners concur with the review?

While I noticed that flare is generally suppressed. But a flare is still a flare, no matter how minor. So the flare control is greatly improved but still exists.

Colour contrast are indeed more saturated. So this is very good.

There isn't an image with bright lights in the background so still not able to really see the OoF rendering.

 

[renzokuken]

While I noticed that flare is generally suppressed. But a flare is still a flare, no matter how minor. So the flare control is greatly improved but still exists.

a camera is still a camera no matter how bad the IQ is
So it can still capture moments even though imperfections exist

 

[victorlee10]

I don't have either of the lens but based on review sites I think it's very difficult to justify the 1k price diff....

 

[voxies09]

if TS thinking to get one.. why dont check your budget.. if I have the budget, i'll go to IS II, else go to IS or Non IS version.. interm of IQ.. well review said IS II is better..

edit: on 2nd thought, may be you can rent the lens and do a review about those points you highlighted.. many ppl are interested to read too

 

[ManWearPants]

a camera is still a camera no matter how bad the IQ is
So it can still capture moments even though imperfections exist

have you seen the flare problems of MkI?

I don't have either of the lens but based on review sites I think it's very difficult to justify the 1k price diff....

if TS thinking to get one.. why dont check your budget.. if I have the budget, i'll go to IS II, else go to IS or Non IS version.. interm of IQ.. well review said IS II is better..

edit: on 2nd thought, may be you can rent the lens and do a review about those points you highlighted.. many ppl are interested to read too

Thanks for your comments. I am hoping for more constructive inputs on the lens performance.

 

[Headshotzx]

Here is a bokeh comparison:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/901472/0

I feel that if you own the mk1, mk2 isn't worth the upgrade unless you have deep pockets and need the latest and greatest technology (i.e. IQ/IS/AF etc).

 

[ManWearPants]

Here is a bokeh comparison:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/901472/0

I feel that if you own the mk1, mk2 isn't worth the upgrade unless you have deep pockets and need the latest and greatest technology (i.e. IQ/IS/AF etc).

Thanks for the link. The bokeh test under such condition seems to show the MkI to be more diffused and actually looked better at the long end. I wonder how the MkII at MFD of 1.2m have advantage over the MkI at MFD 1.4m.

While the MkI is great for a lot of uses, based on reviews, the MkII should make for a better outdoor lens for faster AF, 4 stop IS, better flare suppression, and better colour saturation. And used with a 1.4xTC should yield sharper IQ than the MkI at 280mm. I am trying to evaluate if I should trade my MkI + 70-300DO for a MkII + 1.4xTC.

The lens flare of MkI. I wonder if this will happen with spotlights or only during act of nature.

 

[Michaelavaloke2009]

Thanks for the link. The bokeh test under such condition seems to show the MkI to be more diffused and actually looked better at the long end. I wonder how the MkII at MFD of 1.2m have advantage over the MkI at MFD 1.4m.

While the MkI is great for a lot of uses, based on reviews, the MkII should make for a better outdoor lens for faster AF, 4 stop IS, better flare suppression, and better colour saturation. And used with a 1.4xTC should yield sharper IQ than the MkI at 280mm. I am trying to evaluate if I should trade my MkI + 70-300DO for a MkII + 1.4xTC.

The lens flare of MkI. I wonder if this will happen with spotlights or only during act of nature.

sorry, a bit OT, at least the flare looks artistic and beautiful to me. The flare from cheapo 28F2.8 will scare u off if shoot this direction.

 

[ManWearPants]

sorry, a bit OT, at least the flare looks artistic and beautiful to me. The flare from cheapo 28F2.8 will scare u off if shoot this direction.

That is because it is deliberate after realizing that I can't get rid of the flare.

 

[renzokuken]

have you seen the flare problems of MkI?

this might be karma, but i finally know how Anson felt

 

[ManWearPants]

this might be karma, but i finally know how Anson felt

not too keen on your personal emotions. Only keen on the lens performance.

if going by your earlier notion, any camera can capture the moment. Why do you even need a DSLR? Obviously people with DSLR are looking for something more. And new lenses are being manufactured to surpass the older lenses. So if any discussion on new lenses get this kind of lens out resolving the capability of shooter answer. Then what is the point of discussion?

This is where I think Clubsnappers are losing out to FM'ers. The latter is very constructive with pictures samples to illustrate the situation while the former are more of verbal tirade with nothing more than imagination to substantiate their position.

 

[renzokuken]

well, i'm not so sure about flare
but just by looking at the sample shots from the digital picture

i would say the 1k is justified
if you need more sites
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/512-canon_70200_28is2_50d
it's a german site, and they are known for very particular about quality, though they didn't said anything about flare though

btw, this is a forum, while you feel that expressing my emotions on the matter is irrelevant, it is part and parcel of a forum discussion.
other people can too find the problem on flare irrelevant if you avoid a direct light source
with that said, different people have different uses for their lenses, hence there's no right or wrong
would really like to see how things will go if one day you had a debate with the people you described having "your earlier notion "

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1316/cat/11

the few sites i went to didn't said much about flare issues
i had that earlier "notion" cause i use to think that you were cherry-picking

 

[ManWearPants]

well, i'm not so sure about flare
but just by looking at the sample shots from the digital picture

i would say the 1k is justified
if you need more sites
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/512-canon_70200_28is2_50d
it's a german site, and they are known for very particular about quality, though they didn't said anything about flare though

btw, this is a forum, while you feel that expressing my emotions on the matter is irrelevant, it is part and parcel of a forum discussion.
other people can too find the problem on flare irrelevant if you avoid a direct light source
with that said, different people have different uses for their lenses, hence there's no right or wrong
would really like to see how things will go if one day you had a debate with the people you described having "your earlier notion "

The flare problem is well illustrated in Headshotx's link.

Thanks for your link too. However, I think that the site use a APS-C for its testing. That probably does not stress test the lens enough. I also take website reviews with a pinch of salt cos end of the day, they survive on sponsorship. So would gladly prefer inputs from Clubsnappers who have used either lenses.

I am not going to get into debate here, which is why I wanted to keep personal emotions out of lens discussion. While opinions can differ. Some like MkI while others like MkII. It does not help with comments like if you can afford, buy MkII. If cannot afford MkI. What does this kind of comments add to the discussion on lens performance? Emotions always make a simple lens discussion thread complicated. So would prefer to just focus on the core purpose of this thread.

Thanks.

 

[ManWearPants]

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1316/cat/11

the few sites i went to didn't said much about flare issues
i had that earlier "notion" cause i use to think that you were cherry-picking

No i am not nit-picking or pixel peeping. I have the MkI and like it. But at times, I find it lacking. I am also not a pro. But if you spend 2+k on a lens. Wouldn't it make sense if the 3k lens does a better job, you would go for it instead of the 2+k lens. That's what I am trying to find out.

 

[renzokuken]

i see, i'm sorry for jumping to conclusions then
oh i missed out the father of all canon reviews:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/

they specifically talked about flare here
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/page5.asp

 

[ManWearPants]

i see, i'm sorry for jumping to conclusions then
oh i missed out the father of all canon reviews:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/

they specifically talked about flare here
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/page5.asp

Thanks for the links. Before someone says "have you tried the search function". Yes, i have read most of these reviews. However, I would like to find out from Clubsnappers who have used the MkI and upgraded to MkII. Thanks again for digging up the links.

 

[unseen]

No i am not nit-picking or pixel peeping. I have the MkI and like it. But at times, I find it lacking. I am also not a pro. But if you spend 2+k on a lens. Wouldn't it make sense if the 3k lens does a better job, you would go for it instead of the 2+k lens. That's what I am trying to find out.

Depending what sort of pro you are:

1) pro photog, likely to to stick to mk1 coz should already have 1.. the improvements are marginal, not noticable by the general public, editors, clients. the extra 1k spent won't get you extra $1k of work.

2) pro equipment collector, get the mk2! the improvements are fantastic! Nevermind the extra $1k, you don't use it to make money, but it sure gives you alot more to feel good about.

 

[unseen]

For those who have owned the MkI and now the MkII, kindly share your thought in the improvements of the MkII over the MkI. While it is noted that there is improvements over IS to 4 stop and is sharp wide open. Are there any other notable improvements

- how much is the flare control improved?
- is the colour saturation improved?
- how is the OoF rendering? does MFD of 1.2m means the bokeh is more diffused?

any other improvements?

1) From my feel, flare control is about the same. No big difference. It's not often that you get flares anyway. When you do, it's in one of those totally unavoidable situation that you'll get flare with any lense anyway. I've not come across a situation where it particular strikes me that "wow, I'm not getting flare anymore!"

2) Colour saturation, I don't quite feel or see the difference. I shoot raw, and post processing is a must. Newsdesk editors will process the photos anyway. Event clients don't really care. Personally, the improvements aren't going to allow me to skip the post-editing times.
Oh yes, when flare hits, mk2 is just as bad as mk1

3) oof rendering... I must say on a personal level I HAVE thought, "eh, I was expecting a slightly creamier bokeh, let me move closer and try again", but when I'm shooting for events, mags, etc, most people don't give a daXX. They're just happy that the background is blur.

Me, my take is that MK1 has been in use by top pros for a long time, MK2 isn't going to make any of the past their shots any lousier. However, the IS is really much better for me, and I REALLY REALLY appreciate the 1.2m. It does get you some shots that the MK2 cannot. I'm still in 2 minds if I overspent on this lens for the IS and the MFD.