1D Mk4 and 70-200 MkII

[nemophoto]

I just spent the week shooting with a friend's 1D Mark IV and the 70-200/2.8 II from Canon CPS. What an amazing combo. Very sharp, excellent focusing accuracy and speed. The only downside is significant increase in disk space used. I generally average 30-35GB/day on a catalog between the 1D3 and 1Ds3. This week it was 40-46GB. However, the end result is spectacular. My two main lenses are usually the 85/1.2 and 135/2 for speed, sharpness and depth of field. I found I shot most of the week with just the new 70-200, including images destined for 8 foot posters.

My only problem: I want both! Now, how to free up $7G's in my capital expenditure budget.

Nemo

[dwdallam]

I just spent the week shooting with a friend's 1D Mark IV and the 70-200/2.8 II from Canon CPS. What an amazing combo. Very sharp, excellent focusing accuracy and speed. The only downside is significant increase in disk space used. I generally average 30-35GB/day on a catalog between the 1D3 and 1Ds3. This week it was 40-46GB. However, the end result is spectacular. My two main lenses are usually the 85/1.2 and 135/2 for speed, sharpness and depth of field. I found I shot most of the week with just the new 70-200, including images destined for 8 foot posters.

My only problem: I want both! Now, how to free up $7G's in my capital expenditure budget.

Nemo

Why the increase in disk space when the DS4 is 17MP compared to the DS3 at 21? Have yuo ever shot with the 70-200 L IS version 1?

[adam z]

Why the increase in disk space when the DS4 is 17MP compared to the DS3 at 21? Have yuo ever shot with the 70-200 L IS version 1?

I would assume it is because Nemo was using the 10mp 1DMkIII and a 21mp 1ds MkIII originally, and was using the 1D Mk IV instead of the 1D MkIII for the recent shoot.

I too am curious about how the new 70-200 2.8 IS compares to the model it replaces, as I currently use the older lens.

[madmanchan]

The biggest differences I noticed optically were the higher image contrast wide open at all focal lengths, but more so at the long end, and very high resolution at 200 mm even wide open.

There are the more obvious external differences, of course, such as the new IS (works well, very quiet), improved focus ring design (wider, more heavily damped), and body (boy, this thing is big and heavy ...).

[dwdallam]

I would assume it is because Nemo was using the 10mp 1DMkIII and a 21mp 1ds MkIII originally, and was using the 1D Mk IV instead of the 1D MkIII for the recent shoot.

I too am curious about how the new 70-200 2.8 IS compares to the model it replaces, as I currently use the older lens.

But he said both the 1DIII and the 1DSIII. I don't get it. It's no big deal.

[dwdallam]

The biggest differences I noticed optically were the higher image contrast wide open at all focal lengths, but more so at the long end, and very high resolution at 200 mm even wide open.

There are the more obvious external differences, of course, such as the new IS (works well, very quiet), improved focus ring design (wider, more heavily damped), and body (boy, this thing is big and heavy ...).

I saw some images from a review and there was a huge sharpness difference between the I and II. The same review stated that the bokeh was not nearly as good as v.1, as it was harsher.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

I'm wondering if the lens really does resolve better than v.1, but I don't like the worse bokeh effect. It's hard, when looking at that review, for me NOT to want the new version because it is, or seems to be, so much sharper. We're not talking about a minimal improvement, but a huge improvement.

[madmanchan]

It depends on how the lens is to be used. If we're talking the longer focal lengths (closer to 200) then I would say yes, it's quite a bit better than the first one, wide open. If you tend to use the intermediate focal lengths the differences are not as pronounced.

[Sheldon N]

I saw some images from a review and there was a huge sharpness difference between the I and II. The same review stated that the bokeh was not nearly as good as v.1, as it was harsher.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

I'm wondering if the lens really does resolve better than v.1, but I don't like the worse bokeh effect. It's hard, when looking at that review, for me NOT to want the new version because it is, or seems to be, so much sharper. We're not talking about a minimal improvement, but a huge improvement.

There's not much bokeh difference, which I thought was the same conclusion of the above linked review. I've tested the two versions side by side and didn't see much to argue over. You can see sample images here...

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

[JonRoemer]

I just spent the week shooting with a friend's 1D Mark IV and the 70-200/2.8 II from Canon CPS. What an amazing combo. Very sharp, excellent focusing accuracy and speed. The only downside is significant increase in disk space used. I generally average 30-35GB/day on a catalog between the 1D3 and 1Ds3. This week it was 40-46GB. However, the end result is spectacular. My two main lenses are usually the 85/1.2 and 135/2 for speed, sharpness and depth of field. I found I shot most of the week with just the new 70-200, including images destined for 8 foot posters.

My only problem: I want both! Now, how to free up $7G's in my capital expenditure budget.

The 70-200 II lens is a great improvement.  I've been very happy that I got it.  Very sharp, better contrast, accurate focus (I've used it a lot on the 1DsM3), and the IS is improved allowing for about 2/3 stop increased range.  It works well with AI Servo/tracking on the 1DsM3.

Couple of blog posts about it:
Undercover at the KGB Bar
Canon 24 f/1.4 II & 70-200 f/2.8 II Lenses

I've gone through and done microadjustment tests on most of my lenses.  These new lenses needed no adjustments.

I think the images linked above from FredMiranda.com are showing differences in contrast between the two lenses more than anything else.

[nemophoto]

Why the increase in disk space when the DS4 is 17MP compared to the DS3 at 21? Have yuo ever shot with the 70-200 L IS version 1?

Well, big difference in file size between the 1D3 (10MP) and the 1D4 (16MP). Plus, I shoot L JPEGs (RAW+JPEG) because a number of my clients are poor photo editors and need to see large images to accurately judge sharpness. So, combine the two and you have a nearly 30% increase in disk space.

I actually own the 70-200/2.8 IS version 1, and have had it five or six years. (Before that, I owned the non-IS for about six years.) With each redesign I've seen a big difference in sharpness and resolution.

[nemophoto]

It depends on how the lens is to be used. If we're talking the longer focal lengths (closer to 200) then I would say yes, it's quite a bit better than the first one, wide open. If you tend to use the intermediate focal lengths the differences are not as pronounced.

 I found it significantly sharper though all the ranges and most apertures. My old 70-200 is well maintained by Canon CPS and goes in once or twice a year for cleaning and adjustment, so it's in good shape. But regardless, the new version of the lens is significantly sharper on my 1D3, my 1Ds3 and my friend's 1D4. Perhaps part of that can chalked up to better IS. I just know in the past few years, I've opted for the 85/1.2 or the 135/2 instead of the zoom for sharpness. Now, I'll go with the zoom as easily (if I buy it).