Who is considering upgrading to a 70-200 2.8 L IS Mark II?

DPReview has singled the new Canon 70-200 f 2.8L IS Mark II as a lens worthy of the increased resolution demanded by Pros and enthusiasts who use pixel-packed DSLR's! so what do you think? Is the claimed superlative MTF curves and almost achromatic correction likely to have practical benefit for detail riche scenes. Will the extra one stop of image movement control result in sharper pictures at lower light handheld?

I must admit I find the claims seductive. but I also am wary for the self interest built in to website whos principal purpose is to advertise. After all, we can hardly believe that Amazon purchased dpreview.com as a public service.

So I guess I'm looking for an independent review. Anyone have experience with the new lens or plans to buy it?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

DPReview has singled the new Canon 70-200 f 2.8L IS Mark II as a lens worthy of the increased resolution demanded by Pros and enthusiasts who use pixel-packed DSLR's! so what do you think? Is the claimed superlative MTF curves and almost achromatic correction likely to have practical benefit for detail riche scenes. Will the extra one stop of image movement control result in sharper pictures at lower light handheld?

Click to expand...

From the comparisons I have seen, the answer is yes on all counts. I'm most impressed with the increased contrast (higher MTF at lower spatial frequencies), and lower sensitivity to lens flare. The improvements at wider apertures will allow higher shutterspeeds without significant loss of sharpness, so less of a compromise. The improved IS will not hurt anybody. I have not seen examples of the bokeh, so I can't judge that.

For first time buyers, I'd recommend the version II over the version I, because the additional investment will last a very long time (and future higher resolution body results will look better). Even for current owners of the version I model there are significant improvements, but whether they justify upgrading of course depends on one's use and budget. For more mobile/landscape applications the f/4.0 II sibling is a worthy contender.

One can also consider getting several fixed focal lengths with a bit less flexibility and more bulk, the 200mm f/2.8 is a relatively affordable lens (although without IS) especially when one uses the zoom lens mostly at 200mm, and at 100mm there is an excellent and flexible Macro option.

There are also rumours about an updated 24-70mm II, so for those not needing the longer focal lengths that desperately that might be something to wait for and then decide which one to get first. Together those would be a very combo.

Thanks so much for your input, Bart! For me, as you know I'm shooting low lit scenes, (stages packed with > 100 singers, performers with instruments or dancers) and every help towards resolving detail would be appreciated. 50-70mm gets the entire stage and 200 mm allows one to frame several individuals at a time.

I will sell my 70-2002.8L IS and f4.0 L to get the new lens!

However, I have trouble parting with old friends. I hang on to lenses I hardly use, just in case!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

However, I have trouble parting with old friends. I hang on to lenses I hardly use, just in case!

Click to expand...

There are more people suffering from the same anxiety ..., yet I've done so successfully in the past but only to upgrade to something generally better or to reduce duplication of focal lenghts.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 upgrade will only deliver higher image quality, which is a good justification for many, especially towards the future. The only anxiety involved is monetary in nature. It's still a big and heavy lens, it's slightly heavier and marginally larger than it's predecessor, but it may well be the only lens that allows all that flexibility at such an overall high image quality, a true workhorse.

The only benefit of the f/4.0 II is its lower bulk and weight (and price), so that's the only thing you'll give up. Only landscape/travel shooters might weigh that aspect a bit heavier.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

There are more people suffering from the same anxiety ..., yet I've done so successfully in the past but only to upgrade to something generally better or to reduce duplication of focal lenghts.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 upgrade will only deliver higher image quality, which is a good justification for many, especially towards the future. The only anxiety involved is monetary in nature. It's still a big and heavy lens, it's slightly heavier and marginally larger than it's predecessor, but it may well be the only lens that allows all that flexibility at such an overall high image quality, a true workhorse.

The only benefit of the f/4.0 II is its lower bulk and weight (and price), so that's the only thing you'll give up. Only landscape/travel shooters might weigh that aspect a bit heavier.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Bart,


Do you think the f 4.0 II is going to give me as good results at f40-5.6 limits for my work?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Bart,


Do you think the f 4.0 II is going to give me as good results at f40-5.6 limits for my work?

Click to expand...

The differences at f/5.6 or narrower apertures are small (but noticeable), even at f/2.8 the bigger brother is approximately as good as it's smaller sibling at f/4.5 (which is quite good already), it seems from the 'mouse-over' comparisions.

So, one gains at least a stop in performance at the wider apertures, but mostly at the long end. I could imagine that focusing is a bit better at low light levels as well, and at least provides a brighter viewfinder image.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

The differences at f/5.6 or narrower apertures are small (but noticeable), even at f/2.8 the bigger brother is approximately as good as it's smaller sibling at f/4.5 (which is quite good already), it seems from the 'mouse-over' comparisions.

So, one gains at least a stop in performance at the wider apertures, but mostly at the long end. I could imagine that focusing is a bit better at low light levels as well, and at least provides a brighter viewfinder image.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Interestingly, at distances in theaters from the stage to the back or balconies, f4 to 5.6 gives "enough" depth of field for a 20 foot deep orchestra or ballet stage. Still, I try to reach f4.5 to 5 if I can. What concerns me is the idea that at 70 mm the detail gathering capability might not be as good for short distances, but what about at 60 to 200 ft? After all, 70 mm is often what's needed to get the entire orchestra or dance troupe across the live stage. Would I be better off for these shots in using my 5D or 1DII for the 200 mm shots of 1-2 people but the 5DII and a 50 mm f1.2 lens at 5.6 for the full stage shots?

Asher