topic Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II in EF & RF Lenses

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Wed, 09 May 2018 15:44:10 GMT

I've owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I for close to 10 years with the predominant use case of shooting sports on a 7D Mark I. I'm now moving to college sports and am working on generally trying to "raise my game" a few notches along the way. I bought the 1DXII body and have been amazed by its capabilities. It is still FAR more capable than its owner! I shoot mostly indoor fast-action sports, accompanied by tough lighting and difficult AF Tracking situations.

Having read many of the technical reviews on the 70-200mm I vs II, I was hoping to get some feedback from folks who have used both in real-world settings. For those that have, knowing what you know now, was your upgrading from I to II a good choice in hindsight? I understand that is a question that leads to very subjective answers, but it's that subjectivity that interests me at the moment.

Thanks!

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

MikeSowsun — Wed, 09 May 2018 21:30:12 GMT

I upgraded from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I to the II when it first came out. I sold off the old one, and it still cost me about $1,000. I did not regret it as there is a noticeable improvement in Image Quality, especially wide open at f/2.8

I am not sure what it would cost you to upgrade today, but you will have to decide for yourself whether or not it is worth the extra money it will cost you.

Here is a website where you can compare the two side by side: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

TCampbell — Wed, 09 May 2018 22:08:18 GMT

I own both (I still have my version I as well as my version II).

The version I is still a VERY good lens (make no mistake about that). The version II offered some improved clarity and, in particular, far away from center (the center sharpness is probably about the same ... but edges and corners of the frame are a little better). I wouldn't characterize the original as being weak ... but the version II is better.

I seem to also recall (but haven't really tested this) is that the image stabilization is improved. If you're shooting at lower speeds and rely on stabilization, you'll probably notice some benefit.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Thu, 10 May 2018 05:26:32 GMT

Thanks, Mike!

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Thu, 10 May 2018 05:28:23 GMT

thanks, Tim. I agree with you on the version I... not weak even in the slightest. It's really a great lens. One of my kids is getting into photography so I will likely keep my old version so she can use it. The thing still seems to shoot/feel just like the day I took it out of the box.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

RobertTheFat — Thu, 10 May 2018 13:28:00 GMT

@coachboz68 wrote:
thanks, Tim. I agree with you on the version I... not weak even in the slightest. It's really a great lens. One of my kids is getting into photography so I will likely keep my old version so she can use it. The thing still seems to shoot/feel just like the day I took it out of the box.

I like that idea. The Mk I version is probably beyond the age at which Canon would still repair it, so It might be hard to sell. Keeping it around as a spare with the intention of giving it to your daughter when she's ready to use it sounds like a plan.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

ebiggs1 — Thu, 10 May 2018 15:05:25 GMT

Most people fall into the trap of IQ. IQ is the only thing that is important. Clearly observed here on the forum. The 1st 70-200mil was/is a good lens. It will always be a good lens no matter how many more upgrades Canon does to the next version.

The second version is better in all ways. Everything. AF speed. IS performance, Even IQ. How that translates to the type of photography you do is a question you have to answer.

I had both. I have the 2nd version which I consider to be one of the best lenses made bar none. I have all the third party offerings as well. i even have the brand-N version which is a huge disappointment. Especially for its price.

The bottom line, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is the better lens. Period. Again, IMHO, you bought a 1Dx Mk II ? I would definitely buy the new lens but that's just me. The best deserve the best !

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Thu, 10 May 2018 17:04:37 GMT

<<>Again, IMHO, you bought a 1Dx Mk II ? I would definitely buy the new lens but that's just me. The best deserve the best !>>

We are thinking exactly alike. I bought the 7D just a few months after it was released. Been saving for a long time and stewing over the 1DXII. I don't spend money on any other hobbies and I just love sports shooting. So it was a guilty pleasure to finally pull the trigger on it. So glad I did, though! I enjoy it more than a vacation! (Gotta justify it somehow, right?! 🙂

Now that I'm seeing how powerful it truly is, it's time to give it the lens it deserves! 🙂

Thanks for kicking around the feedback!

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

ebiggs1 — Fri, 11 May 2018 14:12:34 GMT

You are a coach? You know how the feeling is when a player does great things and how excited they can get. If it is a young player even more. I teach music and photography and I get the same feeling when a person really gets it and responds so.

It sounds to me that you are that person right now! You have the best camera made and looking at the best lens made, what not to like. Now do go out out make some great shots. I have been stuck in this profession and hobby for as long as I can remember and it still fascinates me. I can't wait to get the camera out again the next time.

If you will, show us some of those 'great' shots.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Fri, 11 May 2018 14:32:00 GMT

Yeah, was a scholarship football player in college, then a high school football coach for quite a long time. Now I have a daughter who just got a scholarship for gymnastics, which is the sport that was created to test my patience with fast-action photography in horrible light! 🙂 . She's starting in a few months and the college gyms are WAY better lit than the "club level" competitions, but it's still a challenge.

I also have been doing volunteer shooting for high school sports events, in particular when our school plays disadvantaged programs I'll take a bunch of shots for the other team. I want to do more of that. And I'm thinking about doing some volunteer shooting for things like high school graduations or special occassions for inner city schools, but I'll need to do some learning on lighting for portrait photography. I don't have the "eye" for that like I do sports.

I've been blessed with a good career in the software industry (always coached "paraprofessionally" while I was doing full-time software development) so I am able to spend a bit more on this hobby than I probably should (e.g. 1DXII). But I think quality photography can be a real gift for people who are only used to the world of phone pics.

Thanks to everyone in this forum who contributes so unselfishly! I love reading all the feedback.

FWIW... here's one from years ago that's one of my favorites. The school in white is basically a reformatory where they use football as one of the last-ditch efforts to reach these kids. They brought precisely ZERO fans to the game. So our fans split in half and went on their side to cheer for them. That, plus some of these pics, made the kids feel like people cared, at least for one night.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

ebiggs1 — Fri, 11 May 2018 14:47:17 GMT

"...I'll need to do some learning on lighting for portrait photography."

Not to belabor the point, but the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is also the best portrait lens. I have used virtually all of them and seem to always come back to the zoom. It has been and is more and more becoming the 'goto' portrait lens for the industry.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Fri, 11 May 2018 15:04:16 GMT

Do you find there's a particular sweet spot in the focal length for portaits? Or is that just going to be completey situation and personal taste dependent?

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

ebiggs1 — Fri, 11 May 2018 15:10:29 GMT

"...completey situation..."

Yes! Because it is a zoom and such a versatile lens it has become the favorite. We use to like the 85mil, 100mil up to 135mm but his lens offers all in one package. Add to the fact it has a reasonably fast constant aperture doesn't hurt either.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

RobertTheFat — Fri, 11 May 2018 17:41:55 GMT

@coachboz68 wrote:
Do you find there's a particular sweet spot in the focal length for portaits? Or is that just going to be completey situation and personal taste dependent?

Believe it or not, it depends on the length of the subject's nose.

When you take a portrait, which typically includes not much more than the subject's face, your first impulse is to move in close to fill the frame. But that imposes a wide-angle effect that tends to exaggerate the length of the subject's nose. The cure for that is to move back (to lessen the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the rest of the face) and to use a longer lens (to fill the frame as it would have been filled if you hadn't moved back). So if the subject has a very long nose, you move back farther and use an even longer lens. The historical consensus is that on a full-frame camera the focal length should be, on average, somewhere between 85 and 135 mm.

I don't pretend to be a portrait photographer, but my preference, such as it is, is about 135 mm on a full-frame camera. That would be just under 85 mm on Canon's version (1.6 "crop factor") of an APS-C camera. As usual, YMMV.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

limvo05 — Sun, 13 May 2018 04:00:27 GMT

I've been saving for weeks if not longer to come up with just enough cash to get the mark i version, for a good price, $800 to be exact. To my surprised, the lense still in prestine condition, not a single scratch on the body or glass. Anyway, I am noticing the photos seems to have a strong blue casting shade. Not sure if this is expected with this type of lens or something is wrong with the lens? Thanks,
LV

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Sun, 13 May 2018 04:57:39 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
I've been saving for weeks if not longer to come up with just enough cash to get the mark i version, for a good price, $800 to be exact. To my surprised, the lense still in prestine condition, not a single scratch on the body or glass. Anyway, I am noticing the photos seems to have a strong blue casting shade. Not sure if this is expected with this type of lens or something is wrong with the lens? Thanks,
LV

After nearly 10 years and who knows how many thousands of pictures, my 70-200 MK 1 never had any issues like the one you described. The lens is pretty legendary, so I would say something like you describe is not to eb "expected."

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

limvo05 — Sun, 13 May 2018 05:05:16 GMT

Here is a sample photo, that said, this one doesn't look too bad other than it's a little out of focus as I was closer than the minimum focus distant required, and i don't have my reading glasses on to manual focus properly.

Should I be worried something wrong with the lens? Thanks

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

ebiggs1 — Sun, 13 May 2018 14:33:58 GMT

" I am noticing the photos seems to have a strong blue casting shade."

Easy to test ! Go out side on a nice sunny day set the camera to WB to daylight and ISO 100. Do some shots and look at them. Remember your monitor could be off so you may want to use a couple different ones. Maybe a friend?

Also, remove any filter you may have on the lens for this test.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

coachboz68 — Fri, 25 May 2018 04:03:06 GMT

Just want to update the group and leave this feedback for anyone else deciding between the mark 1 and 2 of this lens...

Just finished my first shoot with the new 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. Prom night.

I don't think I am ever going to want to use another lens!

Absolutely fabulous. The clarity, IQ, and IS combination is just amazing. I was also using my 24-70 L (also mark 1) and there was just no comparison when zooming into the details.

this 70-200 was worth every penny for me. Can't remember when I was so thrilled with a lens!

Thanks for all the feedback while I was deciding.

Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

RobertTheFat — Fri, 25 May 2018 13:13:22 GMT

@coachboz68 wrote:
Just want to update the group and leave this feedback for anyone else deciding between the mark 1 and 2 of this lens...

Just finished my first shoot with the new 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. Prom night.

I don't think I am ever going to want to use another lens!

Absolutely fabulous. The clarity, IQ, and IS combination is just amazing. I was also using my 24-70 L (also mark 1) and there was just no comparison when zooming into the details.

this 70-200 was worth every penny for me. Can't remember when I was so thrilled with a lens!

Thanks for all the feedback while I was deciding.

Not to keep you spending money, but it also works very nicely (as an outdoor lens anyway) with the 1.4X III extender.