Camera Labs

I would say the interesting thing about the 2.8 IS is the fact that you could add a 2x teleconverter and make it a 400mm f/5.6.

I owned the f/4 non-IS and most tell you I was totally satisfied with it, and never needed the IS. Now, I mostly take landscapes, so a tripod is always with me and I have like all the time in the world to take a picture, so depending on what you do, you might need the IS feature more than me.

I changed the lens for a Sigma 120-400mm, mostly for the focal length, but I am now considering getting a Canon 70-200mm with a 2x teleconverter. So in this case, you can a super-fast telephoto, and you can add the teleconverter to have a not-so-slow super telephoto, in case you need it. How is the IQ of the 70-200mm f/2.8 degraded with the teleconverter. I have no idea...

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L

If you want to go 400, in order of highest sharpness first, it is 400mm f/5.6L > 100-400L > 70-200 IS f/2.8L + 2x where this last combo is rather soft.

There is now a 5th choice, with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. The big question is, how does that fit in?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Thanks for the info Popo. Naturally, a 400mm or 300mm prime telephoto would produce the very best images, but I don't want to go carrying around a 400mm prime and a 70-200mm and all the rest of things one goes around with. (I don't have Rambo's back, you know

The 100-400mm is naturally a good choice, but wouldn't it be nice to have the wide aperture of the f/2.8 AND be able to convert it to 140-400mm, in the few cases you need it?

I have read that the Mark II version of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS is much sharper than the previous one, I'd be curious to see the results of this new lens coupled together with a 2x teleconverter...

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L

I don't disagree with that - but when it comes down to it, the 100-400L is better at 400 than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk1 + TC, not to mention being quite a bit cheaper. Of course that only considers performance at 400mm...

The f/2.8 IS mk2 is definitely more interesting... but you're really paying for it.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Yeah, the f/2.8 mk2 is about 3000 Swiss francs here, veeeery expensive...

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L

I tested this for you. I have shot:

70-200 2.8L IS USM II @200 f5.6 1/250th
70-200 2.8L IS USM II + 2.0 ext @400 f5.6 1/250th

70-200 2.8L IS USM I @200 f5.6 1/250th
70-200 2.8L IS USM I + 2.0 ext @200 f5.6 1/250th

100-400 4.5-5.6LIS USM I @400 f5.6 1/250th
100-400 4.5-5.6LIS USM I @800 f11 (just for fun) 1/250th

IS truned off and mounted on tripod. Off-camera flash used as available light is low.

I added a temporary gallery for you to look at with exif data intact. I actually think the 70-200 II plus extender outperforms my 100-400 @ 400.

I for one would be happy to leave the 100-400 at home and go out with the 70-200 mkII plus 2x extender.

Sorry it is not real-world test, I am moving apartment so lucky I managed to do these (plus I am busy with work!).

http://www.dpinparis.com/camlabs/camlab70200test/index.html

Note: I was worried about the result with the MKI 70-200 plus extender so I tested again, with the same result. It did improve with the liveview AF (LVAF) but I thought it unfair to use as LVAF was not used for the other lenses plus it only improved slightly.

edit: you can download the jpeg files: http://www.dpinparis.com/camlabs/camlab70200test/jpgs/
edit2: removed incorrect statement regarding use of 2x extender as pointed out by popo.

Thanks for the test. In a quick look I'm not sure I see that much difference between them other than the mk1+TC being lower contrast it seems.

Still, the mk2 does seem to be one for the long term buy list

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

I'm going to by the 70-200 2.8L IS II USM or the 70-200 2.8L IS USM in about two months. So my question is.
Is the Mk II worth the extra 600 USD?

_________________
Victor
Nikon D300 - Nikkor 16-85 VR - Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR I
www.victorhoffmann.com

It is sharper than the mki, but it is up to you to decide if you think it is woth the extra 600. You can see some sample shots from both lenses following the links in my post above.

_________________
http://www.parismetrotrash.com

Hi folks,

I don't believe the review has been linked to yet in this thread so check out the PhotoZone EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II review. Not only the best Canon 70-200mm zoom but arguably the best 70-200mm zoom from any manufacturer. Looking at the price, though, I'm extremely glad that I don't need f/2.8 so I'm more than happy to stick with my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Hi All

Being an amatuer , i am not getting the technical terms used here ...

But this lens 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM my dream lens , i am going to buy it may be next month... i am not a photographer , i am just more interested in photography and slowly this is developing as a hobby for me..

Since the existing price of 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II is more costly than the mk1 and i cant afford that price for the moment , i'll stick to mk1 for the moment.. once i buy it i'll post a photo with myself holding on to my dream lens in near future..

cant wait for that day..

Cheers
Mano

_________________
Canon EOS 5D mk III|Canon EOS 7D | 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM | 400 F5.6 L USM

Hi Mano,

The word on the Net is that the Mark II of the f/2.8 is a lot better than the Mark I and is on a par with the f/4L IS USM. The Mark I does, of course, still takes pictures as well as ever but if you don't need f/2.8 the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM might be a better option. Or you could wait until the initial rush for the Mark II dies down, possibly after some wretched soccer tournament is over, and see if prices fall a little.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Hi Bob

Sorry as said earlier , i am in a rush to write my post and totally messed up here...

Sorry for that..

i wont by mk1 or mk2 as i am having 50d as of now and i have not mastered it yet ... (long way to go actually to do that ) .. but i was actually referring to 70-200 f2.8L IS USM... to USM II... since i cant afford that extra amount on II i'll stick to the old horse..

thanks for enlightening this to me...

Cheers
Mano

_________________
Canon EOS 5D mk III|Canon EOS 7D | 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM | 400 F5.6 L USM

Hi Mano,

I wasn't referring to cameras, just the various lenses which are the subject matter of this thread.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Woohoo, I wanna get the f4 non IS

_________________
Canon EOS 500D

Flickr