Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: dwdallam on April 01, 2010, 09:12:39 am
-
Canon 70-200L IS vs 70-200L IS II
Any information and respectable reviews around? 2500.00US<--It better be good.
-
Canon 70-200L IS vs 70-200L IS II
Any information and respectable reviews around? 2500.00US<--It better be good.
A french guy has posted a few comparative images (5D MK2). You can download the files (JPEG but you can ask for RAW files also):
http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php...ic,81908.0.html (http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,81908.0.html)
There's a brief description and a download link (300MB).
-
Canon 70-200L IS vs 70-200L IS II
Any information and respectable reviews around? 2500.00US<--It better be good.
Lloyd Chambers posted an excellent review here: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2010-03-blog.html (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2010-03-blog.html) (scroll down the page). The more detailed review is by subscription. In essence, there was significant loss of center sharpness at 200mm at f/stops smaller than 5.6. I ordered the same lens to try, and since Lloyd is local we tested my copy and found exactly the same thing. Mine will be returned to B&H. Lloyd has a third copy coming that he will be testing and reporting on. The real question is that of design flaw vs. a batch of bad lenses.
Watching him do the testing I can vouch for his methods if your more interested in images than MTF charts. If your considering this lens I'd strongly suggest subscribing and looking at the detailed results.
Paul
-
The Digital Picture 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
-
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canon-7...-ii-usm-review/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-review/)
-
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canon-7...-ii-usm-review/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-review/)
I read this but I wasn't convinced given the repetitious verbiage and the lack of good, solid, empirical testing. The entire review finds nothing wrong with the lens. It seems tom be perfect. I'm not convinced, especially after reading the Loyd review.
-
I wish Micheal would test this lens. (hint hint)
-
I wish Micheal would test this lens. (hint hint)
Unless there are significant improvements I will be hard pressed to upgrade to the MKII. The MKI is already a good performing lens.
-
Unless there are significant improvements I will be hard pressed to upgrade to the MKII. The MKI is already a good performing lens.
Version I also has an issue of calibration. I bought one 3+ years ago, and sharpness was much poorer than my 70-300mm DO! Sent it back to Canon for calibration with marked improvement.
Since weight is an issue, I sold the original 70-200 IS f/2.8 (very sharp) and compared the 2.8 II (as tested by Lloyd) to the f/4, which is fine. BTW, focus is very critical. I eventually shot tethered with a small laptop and manual focus at 200%, and could very quickly manually focus and run through of series of f/ stops with the best possible focus.
I think the take home message that any lens needs to be checked out with the expectation that a good number will either need to be returned or sent for calibration under warranty. Really too bad that we have to do all that work to get a good lens! But once it's checked out can forget about it and enjoy shooting.
Paul