FA+
Shop
Ho-ly Shit
15 years ago
So the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM finally hit the shelves - I've been waiting for it to come out, partly just to see how it performs, but mostly because it's introduction would mean more second-hand Mk. I's than I could shake a stick at for relatively cheap.
However, after reading reviews and looking at sample photos, I would reaaally like to save up for a Mk. II. This lens is fucking amazing.
A successor to arguably one of the best SLR lenses ever made, made even better; but not just better - much better. Comparing samples from the Mk. I and the Mk. II, you'll find that the Mk. II is vastly superior in pretty much every way, shape and form, including, but certainly not limited to, sharpness, contrast and CA.
Even at f/2.8, this lens is sharp and throughout the entire focal range. Very slight vignetting, wide open, but stopping down makes vignetting nigh undetectable and hardly improves sharpness, if at all. The Mk. I was not a great performer, wide open, being very soft throughout the image. Stopping down to f/4 greatly improved the sharpness, but even that isn't as sharp as the Mk. II at f/2.8. Even Canon's 200 f/2.8 prime lens doesn't compare to the Mk. II's sharpness, wide open or stopped down. The only Canon lens that seems to be on par with the Mk. II at 200mm is the 200mm f/2.0 prime, which is astounding, considering the f/2.0 costs twice as much.
Chromatic aberrations, distortion, flare - all of these are controlled much, much better in the Mk. II. CA is hardly noticeable at any focal length and aperture and while distortion is present, it is very minimal; one field the 200mm f/2.0 performs noticeably better in. Flare is not something that is going to be gotten rid of completely, but it is very well-controlled in this lens. All of this is not only true in the center of the image, but even in the extreme corners of full-frame sensors.
Alrighty, that's enough of me servicing Canon - if you want to see for yourself, there's a very in-depth review including sample images and lens comparisons available at The-Digital-Picture.com.
However, after reading reviews and looking at sample photos, I would reaaally like to save up for a Mk. II. This lens is fucking amazing.
A successor to arguably one of the best SLR lenses ever made, made even better; but not just better - much better. Comparing samples from the Mk. I and the Mk. II, you'll find that the Mk. II is vastly superior in pretty much every way, shape and form, including, but certainly not limited to, sharpness, contrast and CA.
Even at f/2.8, this lens is sharp and throughout the entire focal range. Very slight vignetting, wide open, but stopping down makes vignetting nigh undetectable and hardly improves sharpness, if at all. The Mk. I was not a great performer, wide open, being very soft throughout the image. Stopping down to f/4 greatly improved the sharpness, but even that isn't as sharp as the Mk. II at f/2.8. Even Canon's 200 f/2.8 prime lens doesn't compare to the Mk. II's sharpness, wide open or stopped down. The only Canon lens that seems to be on par with the Mk. II at 200mm is the 200mm f/2.0 prime, which is astounding, considering the f/2.0 costs twice as much.
Chromatic aberrations, distortion, flare - all of these are controlled much, much better in the Mk. II. CA is hardly noticeable at any focal length and aperture and while distortion is present, it is very minimal; one field the 200mm f/2.0 performs noticeably better in. Flare is not something that is going to be gotten rid of completely, but it is very well-controlled in this lens. All of this is not only true in the center of the image, but even in the extreme corners of full-frame sensors.
Alrighty, that's enough of me servicing Canon - if you want to see for yourself, there's a very in-depth review including sample images and lens comparisons available at The-Digital-Picture.com.
