70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or 70-200mm f/2.8L USM II

ultimitsu said:

caterpillar said:

ultimitsu said:

F2.8II is worth the money because it is sharp. F2.8I is not wroth the money because it is not sharp. it is that simple.

if it is between F2.8I and F4, then get F4. because it is so sharp.

in fact F2.8I at F2.8 is so unsharp you will end up with better image with F4 and twice the iso.

Click to expand...

I was talking of the shutter speeds at f2.8 vs f4, not sharpness. Even a sharp lens will blur if the shutter speed is not there to support you.

Click to expand...

you are missing the point, I was talking about f2.8 vs f4 at the same shutter speed . what you end up with f4 shot using higher iso, and the point here is that the sharp f4 shot with higher iso gives you at the least the same amount of detail as the unsharp f2.8 shot with low iso.

Click to expand...

No, it's you who is missing the point. If the f2.8 at the correct shutter speed is at iso 1600 and your f4 is at 3200, then your shot will have more noise. That is why the f2.8 is no pittance when it comes to action shots. Boosting the ISO, as any pro knows is what you want to do last if you can because you take a quality hit in dynamic range, noise esp in the shadows, etc.

ultimitsu said:

F2.8I can be sharp, yes, only if you slow it down to F4, so what is the point of carrying the extra weight and pay the extra dollar for it?

Click to expand...

See, where you are not listening. But our mk-I is sharp at f2.8 at 200m! And we are on par with your f4! That is for sure. The difference is, we have f2.8 to play with. You don't. Why do you insist that our mk-I at f2.8 is soft? It isn't. And most lenses made sometime 2006 and later are usually sharp even at 200m.

Again, not as sharp as the non-IS or the mk-II, but it is no slouch like in the early 2000-2005 releases where getting a good one is a hit-or-miss. Mostly the sharp ones are rarity. Not anymore. Now, it's the other way around.

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

True, they are not as sharp as a non-IS or the new mk-II IS, but it is sharp enough. It is never soft.

Click to expand...

actually non-IS F2.8 isnt that sharp either.

Click to expand...

Then I pity you. You haven't really used a good copy of the 70-200 f2.8 or f4.0. Having used many copies of these, I am privileged to know the potential of these lenses. Since you lack the experience, maybe you should take leaf from our book instead of insisting on your position

ultimitsu said:

and maybe F2.8I it is "sharp enough", just like iso 3200 is "close enough" iso 1600, which therefore makes F4 just as "good enough", doesnt it?

Click to expand...

See, you are comfused again. If the shutter speed is not going to stop the motion, then 3200 is not going to be close enough. And remember the noise of the 3200. To illustrate this further, what if both our headroom is 128,000 ISO and to properly stop the motion, I need f2.8, then you don't have any more room to move since you are stuck at f4! I have the shot, you won't.

And if it is sharpness you are talking about, even if I conceded that mine is "soft" (w/c I don't concede) at f2.8, I have f4.0 and know we are even. The thing is, my f2.8 isn't soft and I have f2.8. You don't. When you are at the end of your ISO threshold, you have nothing to hold onto. I have.

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

To say that a mark I is soft is not exactly true if they basically are of the same design

Click to expand...

that is some bald assumption, you odnt know if they are the same design, some schematics may appear similar, but I am sure there are plenty of detail that can vary. in any case, plain as the day, F2.8II is noticeably sharper than F2.8I

Click to expand...

It is not an assumption. It is a fact. Look at the schematics. Look at the f2.8 at f4 schematics. Basically the same for all the lines (IS or non-IS) for the same class. So, you are the one making bald assumptions. And you have forgotten even for the same class (mk-I) the 2006 and up are sharper than the pre-2006 versions. Same everything. So, what does that tell you? Where does the difference lie - It's in the way they are made. The new factory that was inaggurated in Japan using newer machines, robots, collimaters, now can make them better, hence we get better performance across the board.

The f2.8-II is notiecebly sharper than the mk-I in some situations and if you really pixel peep. But in the center, they are about the same. Contrast is slight to the mk-II, but these are hard to detect in most shooting situations. As long as there is no light from the front, it's hard to tell them apart.

So, the difference bet the mk-I and II is there. But it is not night and day. And it becomes noticeable only in certain situations. Even the AF speed difference is hard to come by. It's like talking of .05 vs .04 sec. It's there, but will you miss the shot? Likely not.
--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

Just curious, are you using a grey card for white balance or perhaps the ice surface?

I've has several photogs recommend using some dirty ice for white balance. You've done a nice job with you blacks. They are so easy to underexpose and muddle.

James Madara said:

Just curious, are you using a grey card for white balance or perhaps the ice surface?

I've has several photogs recommend using some dirty ice for white balance. You've done a nice job with you blacks. They are so easy to underexpose and muddle.

Click to expand...

Most rinks around here have switched to fluorescent lights. I just use fluorescent white balance. Sometimes shooting through the glass you get a slight color tint, but I find I can fix that easily using curves. If the rink has those sodium vapor lights, then I use a longish (1/15 sec or so) exposure on dirty ice and set a custom white balance. The long exposure to try to average out the light cycling, but it only helps so much. I hate those sodium lights. White balance and even exposure can vary from shot to shot in an 8 fps burst (even with the camera set on manual exposure).

I don't think that earlier shot really does the 70-200 justice. At these sizes, mine probably don't either, but you get the idea.

My daughter, 7D, 70-200ISII, f/3.2, 1/500, ISO3200:



Same rink, same 7D, but with the 70-200 non-IS, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO3200:



This is one of the brighter rinks I shoot at. I could probably have made f/4 work if I shot at ISO5000 and dropped the shutter speed to 1/320 or so, but the results would have not been acceptable to me. And in the dimmer rinks where I'm already at ISO4000 or ISO5000, I wouldn't even bother with f/4.

Mark

caterpillar said:

ultimitsu said:

caterpillar said:

I was talking of the shutter speeds at f2.8 vs f4, not sharpness. Even a sharp lens will blur if the shutter speed is not there to support you.

Click to expand...

you are missing the point, I was talking about f2.8 vs f4 at the same shutter speed . what you end up with f4 shot using higher iso, and the point here is that the sharp f4 shot with higher iso gives you at the least the same amount of detail as the unsharp f2.8 shot with low iso.

Click to expand...

No, it's you who is missing the point. If the f2.8 at the correct shutter speed is at iso 1600 and your f4 is at 3200, then your shot will have more noise. That is why the f2.8 is no pittance when it comes to action shots. Boosting the ISO, as any pro knows is what you want to do last if you can because you take a quality hit in dynamic range, noise esp in the shadows, etc.

Click to expand...

!!? I really am not sure how you could read and quote a paragraph and still manages not getting the point and go a step backwards in the discussion.

the whole point here, which you keeps missing, is that higher iso today loses less detail than the softness does (from soft F2.8 lenses).

caterpillar said:

caterpillar said:

F2.8I can be sharp, yes, only if you slow it down to F4, so what is the point of carrying the extra weight and pay the extra dollar for it?

Click to expand...

See, where you are not listening. But our mk-I is sharp at f2.8 at 200m! And we are on par with your f4! That is for sure. The difference is, we have f2.8 to play with. You don't. Why do you insist that our mk-I at f2.8 is soft? It isn't. And most lenses made sometime 2006 and later are usually sharp even at 200m.

Again, not as sharp as the non-IS or the mk-II, but it is no slouch like in the early 2000-2005 releases where getting a good one is a hit-or-miss. Mostly the sharp ones are rarity. Not anymore. Now, it's the other way around.

Click to expand...

keep tell yourself that maybe it will come true. I dont think F2.8I's softness has anything to do with quality control, it is inherent in its design and choice of glass and coating.

caterpillar said:

caterpillar said:

actually non-IS F2.8 isnt that sharp either.

Click to expand...

Then I pity you. You haven't really used a good copy of the 70-200 f2.8 or f4.0. Having used many copies of these, I am privileged to know the potential of these lenses. Since you lack the experience, maybe you should take leaf from our book instead of insisting on your position

Click to expand...

what we have here is wide range of reviews and sample pictures indicating one way, and you with your stories and no pictures telling us the other way... hmm, how could we not agree with you?

caterpillar said:

caterpillar said:

and maybe F2.8I it is "sharp enough", just like iso 3200 is "close enough" iso 1600, which therefore makes F4 just as "good enough", doesnt it?

Click to expand...

See, you are comfused again. If the shutter speed is not going to stop the motion, then 3200 is not going to be close enough. And remember the noise of the 3200. To illustrate this further, what if both our headroom is 128,000 ISO and to properly stop the motion, I need f2.8, then you don't have any more room to move since you are stuck at f4! I have the shot, you won't.

Click to expand...

first of all 128000 doesnt exist, i think you meant 12800.

secondly you are the one that is confused. this senstece : "If the shutter speed is not going to stop the motion, then 3200 is not going to be close enough." makes no sense at all.

thirdly, even in the rare situation where iso is maxed out, F4 lens simply underexpose by 1 stop and pull it up in post. against there will be destruction of details but i think at that point IQ doesnt really matter anymore, it is not like 12800 is significantly better than 12800 underexposed by 1 stop.

caterpillar said:

And if it is sharpness you are talking about, even if I conceded that mine is "soft" (w/c I don't concede) at f2.8, I have f4.0 and know we are even.

Click to expand...

and somehow you think this is a win for you? spending the extra money and carrying the extra weight just to be on equal ground!?

caterpillar said:

caterpillar said:

that is some bald assumption, you odnt know if they are the same design, some schematics may appear similar, but I am sure there are plenty of detail that can vary. in any case, plain as the day, F2.8II is noticeably sharper than F2.8I

Click to expand...

It is not an assumption. It is a fact. Look at the schematics. Look at the f2.8 at f4 schematics. Basically the same for all the lines (IS or non-IS) for the same class. So, you are the one making bald assumptions. And you have forgotten even for the same class (mk-I) the 2006 and up are sharper than the pre-2006 versions. Same everything. So, what does that tell you? Where does the difference lie - It's in the way they are made. The new factory that was inaggurated in Japan using newer machines, robots, collimaters, now can make them better, hence we get better performance across the board.

Click to expand...

again your way of reason amazes me. You are saying because I am telling you that "you can not just assume they are the same just because they look similar", I am making a bald assumption !!? do you even understand what "bald assumption" mean?

and why dont you link the "Basically the same (schematics) for all the lines (IS or non-IS) for the same class" for us? because I am dying to know just how "same are they. Here I was thinking maybe they are not the same because even the number of glasses and groups and different amongst the 70-200s

caterpillar said:

The f2.8-II is notiecebly sharper than the mk-I in some situations and if you really pixel peep. But in the center, they are about the same. Contrast is slight to the mk-II, but these are hard to detect in most shooting situations. As long as there is no light from the front, it's hard to tell them apart.

So, the difference bet the mk-I and II is there. But it is not night and day. And it becomes noticeable only in certain situations.

Click to expand...

once again, maybe if you keep telling yourself that it will come true one day.

James Madara said:

Just curious, are you using a grey card for white balance or perhaps the ice surface?

I've has several photogs recommend using some dirty ice for white balance. You've done a nice job with you blacks. They are so easy to underexpose and muddle.

Click to expand...

Sorry your thread seems to have degenerated. I don't care what the lens reviews say or show, the point is whether a given lens meets your needs and limitations, be they financial or subject-related.

Here's a summary:

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and IS Mk I: Most copies are plenty sharp enough for most purposes. A work-horse zoom, has earned many thousands of dollars for working pro sports photographers and photo journalists. If you need a fast 70-200 zoom, no other choices were available until the new MkII. In general will outperform the Sigma.

Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/4 IS: I owned a non-IS version years ago. Very sharp and light. Probably sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS and IS MkI. If you don't need f/2.8, then go with it. But it will never be f/2.8, no matter how sharp it is at f/4, and sometimes there is no substitute for f/2.8.

New Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS MkII. Probably the sharpest of the bunch. Also the most expensive. Heavy. I got mine late last year during the rebate period when it was about $2K. After selling my 70-200 non-IS, I ended up with a $1,100 upgrade cost that was worth it to me. Now this lens is about $2,500. Gulp.

What should you do? Look for a used 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. You have a few months until hockey starts again. Shop around, KEH, Adorama, Fred Miranda Buy & Sell. You should be able to find one for less than $1,000. If that's still too much, try 135L or 200L primes. Practice shooting and post-processing with them. Until you get good results with these lenses, no point in spending the big money on the 70-200.

Hockey is a very challenging sport to shoot well. Tough lighting, fast, access can be a pain (unless you can shoot from the bench or the penalty box), shooting through the glass means more post-processing. You can get by cheaply shooting soccer and baseball (70-300, 55-250) outdoors in good light. Not so for hockey.

Mark

Thanks for the info. The II is really expensive now. I may have to take your advice and look at some used lenses or wait until prices come back down.

This is how I made my choice when i was shopping for this lens:

F2.8 non IS - It was a must have for canon users years ago before F4IS, and it gives you goo bokeh and subject isolation so it is a good choice as a long portait lens, a lot of wedding photographers use it. but as a sports lens, it isnt very sharp at F2.8, it is heavy, lacks IS and its design dates back in 90s. so if you were to crop your image, especially with high resolution sensors, the lack of sharpness becomes obvious.

F2.8I IS - this lens was expensive and heavy, F2.8 is even worse than non-IS version. to get decent sharpness you need to stop down to F4. back then when most cameras had iso upper limit at 1600, this lens was still useful, but personally i felt its F2.8 IQ didnt justify its excessive price tag

F4 non-is - this lens is light, sharp and has fast af, but it isnt that sharp at 200 F4, personally i thought for that money, the 200 F2.8 prime was a better buy.

F4IS - this lens has the highest rating of all canon zoom lenses, it is light, sharp and AF well. the rationale is, like I said several times already, because it is so sharp you still end up with more detail with iso 1600 than unsharp F2.8 lens at iso800. it is a lot cheaper than F2.8I yet offers practically the same IQ, it is the same price as F2.8 non-is yet offers IS, less weight, and weatherseal, and practically the same IQ. it was easily the best choice.

F2.8II - this lens did not exist when I was shopping, it is the ultimately tele zoom, it is very sharp at F2.8. but it is also very expensive, around 70% more than F4IS. is it worth it? it certainly is a lot better than what F2.8I had to offer, it would really depend on your financial circumstance.

Without reading the myriad of other responses, I would say yes, it is worth the additional expense. I also shoot youth hockey, handheld, and going from a rock solid v1 to another rock solid v2 has made a huge improvement on my keepers. To be fair, my v1 was non-IS and my new v2 is with IS. But even without the IS I find the lens seems to have a better overall image quality about it...

As long as it doesn't break the bank, go for the v2. Having said that, you'll be happy with either.

I have the f4 IS version and use it with an EOS 40d and 5d MKII. Wonderfull lens: tack sharp even at f4 on the 40d (which I use mainly for sports).

PaulL

Not that IS has much to do with your decision, because the Mark II is all about sharpness at f/2.8. I have one and it is superb. I never had the first gen.

IS is mostly useless for sports because in order to freeze action you will be at shutter speeds that will eliminate camera shake too. The only time IS is useful for sports is for when you want to pan and drag the shutter to create a streaked background and give a sense of fast motion.

And simple answer is yes, f/2.8 is in a league of its own. That said, you might want to look into other lenses in Canon's arsenal, especially if shooting indoors - particularly primes. Yes it will limit your range, but it won't drill a hole in your pocket.

--
Noogy
"Photography is therapeutic."
http://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos