Canon 70-200's....

What is the difference in the 70-200 version ii vs version iii in 2.8 IS? I really think after years of THINKING about getting one I might finally do it. Is it worth it to pay more for the version 3?

I do want it to be as sharp as I can get it and resolve as many Megapixels as possible for the future.

I have a 135 F/2 I use for portraits that looks flat out amazing, it has no IS though. It'd be cool to take portraits at 185mm.

I also want to get a 2x convertor because I want to be able to finally do wild life but I don't want a huge lens, so that would make it a 400mm lens. Tony and Chelsea Northup say that the 70-200 with 2x convertor is sharper than the 100-400mm which is good news because I wouldn't want to lug both of those around.

I have never gotten one because I am mostly a landscaper and some portraits. A 70-200 is quite large while hiking to a Landscape.

For this reason I even thought about going with the F/4 version ii because it should be lighter but then I'm afraid it won't be as sharp and I'll regret it. Plus the 2x convertor would make the F/4 version more like F/8.

I have a friend who has the newer Tamron 70-200 2.8 is, it seems nice but it seems like Canon glass has a certain look to it. It doesn't seem to just be the sensor. Also, I notice I don't have to do micro adjustments hardly ever when I buy Canon glass which is nice.

Does anyone have any sharpness comparisons of the New Canon 70-200 iii 2.8 is at 2.8 vs the 135mm F/2 set at 2.8? I'd like to look at both of them side by side at 135 at 2.8 if possible.

The 135, depending on the website has different ratings but I just know with my eyes the thing looks incredible.

I replaced my 135L with the 70-200/2.8 II about 4 years ago due to the flexibility and IS. At this focal length IS is just very useful to keep the ISO down.

The lens is a beast! Super fast AF and very sharp at f2.8 at all focal lengths. The version III has apparently the same optics but upgraded coatings to reduce flair, but version II is already very flair resistant.

I never felt any itch to replace my lens but if I'd buy new today then I'd consider version III just because it's the latest.

No significant difference IMO, though if you want to save some money.

Note: At times I regret having sold my 135L. It's so much smaller and lighter and I didn't need the cash... It was just the fact that I had too many lenses. So my advice is to keep the 135L if you can. Just wait a bit as you can sell it pretty much any time later anyway.

BlueCosmo5050 said:

What is the difference in the 70-200 version ii vs version iii in 2.8 IS? I really think after years of THINKING about getting one I might finally do it. Is it worth it to pay more for the version 3?

I do want it to be as sharp as I can get it and resolve as many Megapixels as possible for the future.

I have a 135 F/2 I use for portraits that looks flat out amazing, it has no IS though. It'd be cool to take portraits at 185mm.

I also want to get a 2x convertor because I want to be able to finally do wild life but I don't want a huge lens, so that would make it a 400mm lens. Tony and Chelsea Northup say that the 70-200 with 2x convertor is sharper than the 100-400mm which is good news because I wouldn't want to lug both of those around.

I have never gotten one because I am mostly a landscaper and some portraits. A 70-200 is quite large while hiking to a Landscape.

For this reason I even thought about going with the F/4 version ii because it should be lighter but then I'm afraid it won't be as sharp and I'll regret it. Plus the 2x convertor would make the F/4 version more like F/8.

I have a friend who has the newer Tamron 70-200 2.8 is, it seems nice but it seems like Canon glass has a certain look to it. It doesn't seem to just be the sensor. Also, I notice I don't have to do micro adjustments hardly ever when I buy Canon glass which is nice.

Does anyone have any sharpness comparisons of the New Canon 70-200 iii 2.8 is at 2.8 vs the 135mm F/2 set at 2.8? I'd like to look at both of them side by side at 135 at 2.8 if possible.

The 135, depending on the website has different ratings but I just know with my eyes the thing looks incredible.

Click to expand...

Blue.

I have three 70-200 L IS. Yes three. The 70-200 f/4 L IS, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II.

In 2009 I bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS. At that time there were rumors of a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. So why not take advantage of the smaller, lighter form. Even though it was f/4, it was sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Version 1. Used it and used it.

The f/2.8 L IS hit the market not long after and I bought the “Great White” the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Sharper than the still wonderful f/4 counter part. Heavier yes, but I was younger as well. Still use it when f/2.8 is required and where low light comes into play. The f/4 L IS sat in the corner.

Returning home from Europe and carrying a ton of gear, I decided to swap out the heavier f/2.8 for the smaller lighter f/4. My Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS for travel was complete. The 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.

A few months ago I decided it was time to go for the new 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. As we were heading to Greece, it was the excuse needed to match the other new offerings in my Greek Trilogy in terms of sharpness, contrast and color. This new offering is my go to 70-200 again unless I need the advantages of f/2.8. A great lens indeed.

As I decided to clean house a bit in terms of old lenses, I decided to trade in a few lenses that I have not used in over a year to obtain this new 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. The 24-105 f/4 L IS Version 1 and the 100-400 L IS Version 1, commonly known here as the “Dust Pump”. The Dust Pump compared to my 100-400 L IS Version 2 is night and day. Version 1 was designed now twenty years ago, the Version 2 is as sharp as my Trilogy, and fits in the same as color, contrast etc. Yes, heavy as the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Is this less Sharp as a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with a 2x EX III...... never heard that one before. I’d beg to differ.

A friend recently had to replace his 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. He bought the Mark III as it was slightly more up to date. Also Canon does discontinue service on older lenses over time. So why not buy the newer offering, host something to think about in the future. Will I be upgrading my Mark II anytime soon, hopefully not.........

Yes I still have all three 70-200’s. The f/4 L IS Version 1 is staying home as a back up if needed. Plus it is a great lens.

Regarding f/4 L IS II vs f/2.8 L IS II or III in terms of sharpness, I’d chose the f/4 as you hinted about the weight in terms of hiking. The never ending battle over weight vs. 1 additional stop. Since you do have the 135 L, a smaller lighter carry with you 70-200 option may be in your future. Yes you can put a 1.4 or 2x converter for more reach....... or maybe, just maybe a 100-400 Mark II could be in your arsenal a few years down the line........

Good Luck Blue in determining your needs.

Just a few notes:

• Optically the best is the 70-200/2.8 L IS versions II or III. LensRentals Blog OLAF shows that f/4 vs. f/4, it is sharper than the 70-200/4 LISII.
• I own the version ii lens (and the 70-200/4 LIS), but its length and weight make it a mutha' to carry around for a long time. It is for that reason that I wish to sell it. Caveat emptor.
• To my mind, the best compromise--IQ/price/weight/girth--is with the 70-200/4 LISII.

Abu Mahendra said:

Just a few notes:

• Optically the best is the 70-200/2.8 L IS versions II or III. LensRentals Blog OLAF shows that f/4 vs. f/4, it is sharper than the 70-200/4 LISII.
• I own the version ii lens (and the 70-200/4 LIS), but its length and weight make it a mutha' to carry around for a long time. It is for that reason that I wish to sell it. Caveat emptor.
• To my mind, the best compromise--IQ/price/weight/girth--is with the 70-200/4 LISII.

Click to expand...

+1

i totally agree with your analysis! i have a canon 70-200 f2.8 non-IS that is superb but heavy as canon 100-400 II, but in low light, f2.8 doesn't help much, in my experience so that is not a big deal! i used to have a 70-200 f4.0 IS, which i absolutely loved with GREAT out put! unfortunately i lost it in a park ;-) to replace my 70-200 f4.0, i opted for the new 100-400 II and i don't regret for my decision as this tele zoom is a wonderful versatile lens, amazing MFD and optics! every camera bag should have a 100-400 II.

however, lately i am lusting for a 70-200 f4.0 IS II, i was amazed when i read the spec sheet when it came out! so, that is where my heart is. 70-200 f4.0 is very portable for travel, having superb optics (more than one fluorite elements)! here is a sample of the canon 70-200 f4.0 IS:


i just love the bokeh ;-)

--
You miss 100 percent of the shots you didn't take!!! "Wayne Gretzky"

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I have the 135mm, the 70-200 f/2.8 i, and the 70-200 f/2.8 iii. I like the iii, but I would keep the i and the 135mm, over just the iii. The 135mm is magical in a way the 70-200 just can't be.

Check this link. I think it will answer your question.

Thanks for all the help.

Yes, I would not get rid of the 135 F/2 simply because it has a certain look that is super impressive and I don't imagine that look can come from a zoom lens. The way it makes eyes look...they are so sharp and have a certain micro contrast going on that I don't have the language to describe but I know it when I see it.

I would like the F/4 version for wild life and such but I'm afraid I won't like the F/4 version when it comes to any portraits.

I do not LIKE to do weddings but I do get hired to do weddings, that's another example. Usually I crop a lot at weddings because I'm shooting with the 24-70 usually and I can't get as close as I'd like to be sometimes.

Some weddings I can use a 35mm prime all day but other weddings are in places that are built in such a way that you need a long lens. Which takes some of my money I get paid for the wedding because I have to rent one.

The Tamron G2 2.8 IS like my friend has is quite cheap yet looks good and I have thought of maybe doing that but I feel I'll be missing on something. DXOmark does give it an extremely high score.

The reason I don't normally go Tamron or Sigma is because I'm convinced that the Canon sensors combined with Canon glass has a certain look to it. I have had Tamron lenses in the past.

I used the Sony A7R for a year with very nice Zeiss glass, but it didn't have that look to it.

I have a really good copy of the 24-70 2.8 ii, the thing is incredible sharp, I have a 16-35 F/4 is, a few primes, so it feels like the 70-200 is all I am missing.

Last but not least there is one more thing on my mind..... I do not currently like any of the Canon mirrorless cameras but I imagine in the future they will have a professional one and I notice that the Canon RF system's 70-200 that is coming out is a lot smaller and lighter, even though it's a 2.8 with IS and it's said to be as sharp as the EF one although we don't know yet. I imagine it will be though.

I also knew a guy with a Sony mirrorless 70-200, it was probably the F/4 version but it was also SUPER small compared to the Canon.

I can be patient it's just.... It's AUTUMN TIME and it's my favorite time to take pictures and it would be exciting to have a new lens. Especially one that would enable to get stuff I never was able to photograph before.