›

Canon 70-200 2.8 is the II worth the exta over the I?

GTSRGTSR Posts: 750 Officer
in Photography Corner #1
I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 which I really like but the focus isn't great on a moving target. Having some Christmas cash, I was thinking of buying the Canon(used from KEH). Should I save up/ spend the extra and get the version II?


Thanks.

Replies

  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    #2
    the canon 70-200mm f2.8 is usm is a fine oiece of glass.
    the II version just has the better IS system that was designed for the efl 70-200 f-4 is usm.
    you might get an exta stop out of it due to the new IS system...
    i have the f-4 variente but have shot a lot with the older f2.8 varient...
    i don't think the efl 70-200 f-2.8 IS USM II is worth the money...

    but thats my opinion....

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,414 AG
    #3
    I knew Tim would swing by with a thought. His opinion was the same as mine about the two versions of the Nikon lens.
    Which ever one(s) of you little boys complained about quotes in the signature should be ashamed of yourself. :blowkiss

    Instead of complaining to the moderators you should just quit playing on this board.
  • itsonlygasitsonlygas Posts: 2 Greenhorn
    #4
    GTSR- I have both but sold my 2.8isL after I bought the II. I looked long and hard about do it on paper didn't make sense to. So I brought in a memo card to a shop and hooked up both lens to a 5dii and took some shots then took my card home. Try thought before was how can it be this much shaper. When I hooked them to my computer the II lens made the I look slightly blurry. So I purchased it and sold the I to a buddy. In my unprofessional but super passionate opinion. If u can swing it and u like tack sharp pics. Get her.

    -cheers
  • OnewolfOnewolf Posts: 657 Officer
    #5
    Sweet little baby jeesus! The II costs $2500? I thought it was bad ten years ago when I paid $1600 for my 70-200 f2.8L IS.
    *** Tidewater 2100 Yamaha F150 ***
    *** Native Watercraft Magic 14.5 ***
    *** www.onewolf.org ***
  • bmarkeybmarkey Posts: 319 Deckhand
    #6
    I have the old version (can be bought for $900 to $1,200 used) and love it. I did read that the new version is sharper.
    Bob Markey
    United Realty Group
    www.WellingtonHomes.com
    Sport, Event & Real Estate Photography
    Palms West Photo
    www.MarkeySportsPhoto.com
  • GTSRGTSR Posts: 750 Officer
    #7
    I am only thinking of used... I use it outside, in the woods alot so new isnt best for me. The swing between a I and II on KEH is $600 or $700
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    #8
    i did some of my testing with my 40d set on a tripod...
    i couldn't see $1000 worth of difference, or maybe my 40D couldn't resolve any differences...
    however a 40D is pretty tack sharp camera, even by todays standards....
    it may not have the dynamic range of the 7D or a 5d, but sharp is still sharp...
    i went for the efl 70-200 f4 is usm...
    but as mentioned earlier, i find myself still using my ef 70-300 is usm more often...
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,414 AG
    #9
    I am no Canon shooter but I have used this lens, albeit on a D1x and it is superb >>>> efl 70-200 f4 is usm...

    The new Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 is also superb. I would own one if I did not already have a 70-200 f/2.8
    Which ever one(s) of you little boys complained about quotes in the signature should be ashamed of yourself. :blowkiss

    Instead of complaining to the moderators you should just quit playing on this board.
Sign In or Register to comment.