How much of a difference is there between MK1 and MKII lens?

[Dolby]

Take the 70-200 L 2.8 IS MKII .... it costs a whopping R23,000.00 (new) and can't be had second hand as yet.

However I see the 70-200 L 2.8 IS MKI (if you can find it) is about R13,000.00 - R15,000.00 used - and was only R18,000.00 when brand new.

Is there is a visible difference between the two?
Or am I missing something else vital in the specs?

 

[bwana]

Yes.

 

[adsl2]

Yes.

+1!

 

[Dolby]

I'm starting to get a complex with bwanas single worded replies ...

 

[BrokenLink]

How much of a difference is there between MK1 and MKII lens?

1. I did a bit of research and it turns out "II" is greek for 2. So its MK2. Thus the difference is 1.

 

[bwana]

I'm starting to get a complex with bwanas single worded replies ...

Why?

 

[Dolby]

You seem rather tense when replying

Perhaps I'm too used to seeing emoticons to judge 'tone' though - and since you're lacking, I'm readinf you wrongly?

Anyway - just wanted to (hypothetically) see if the difference would be worth R7k-R10k extra for the MKII

Um. Thanks Brokenlink

 

[koffiejunkie]

Yes, there is. But the old one is superb too. I used one for a couple of days at a music festival last year. Almost all my shots were keepers.

 

[BrokenLink]

Your welcome

 

[rorz0r]

On those particular one the old IS claims to improve shooting by 2 stops and the new IS by 4 stops. I don't think much else has really changed.

 

[koffiejunkie]

On those particular one the old IS claims to improve shooting by 2 stops and the new IS by 4 stops. I don't think much else has really changed.

The optics are much improved too - check the reviews on photozone.de.

 

[bwana]

Anyway - just wanted to (hypothetically) see if the difference would be worth R7k-R10k extra for the MKII

only you can answer that question. Some people seem to value the sharpness of an image more than the actual content.

 

[Dolby]

Thanks !

I'll try find a few sample images

 

[Paul_S]

Nice review here with sample images and comparisons between the old and new lens :
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Take a look at these ISO 12233 crops:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The 70-200 f/2.8 MkII appears to be significantly sharper through the entire 70-200mm range except for 100mm where the corners seems to be a tiny bit softer than the Mk I lens.
CA has been greatly reduced and is almost non-existent on the new lens.
Lens flare has also been reduced.
An extra 2 f-stops IS.

Pretty much a vastly improved lens - not just a minor upgrade.
The old lens is really good but if I was buying glass I'd spend the extra R10K for sure.

 

[Dolby]

Thanks Paul!

 

[bwana]

98% of ALL cameras and ALL lenses are better than 99% of ALL photographers! - the question is are you ever going to be in a position to exploit the difference between a MkI and II?