A few months ago I finally broke down and coughed up the money to upgrade my Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens to the newer version II model. I really should have done it sooner, but I just never got around to it. I've never been the type to drop everything and scoop up the newest technology right when it comes out. But it was time, and I'm glad I finally upgraded.
Yesterday I took both the original 70-200 2.8 lens and the new version II out for a little comparison shoot. I wanted to see for myself what the real difference was. Sara, my office manager, was my super-cute model. All of the images in this post are straight out of camera.
Right off the bat, I noticed that the original lens was WAY more washed out and susceptible to the effects of flare than the version II. But then I decided to switch out the UV filters to make sure that wasn't a variable. What I realized quickly was that it was a HUGE factor. It turns out the Canon UV filter I bought back in 2007 was to blame for most of the flare issues. Here's a side-by-side comparison:
Yesterday I took both the original 70-200 2.8 lens and the new version II out for a little comparison shoot. I wanted to see for myself what the real difference was. Sara, my office manager, was my super-cute model. All of the images in this post are straight out of camera.
Right off the bat, I noticed that the original lens was WAY more washed out and susceptible to the effects of flare than the version II. But then I decided to switch out the UV filters to make sure that wasn't a variable. What I realized quickly was that it was a HUGE factor. It turns out the Canon UV filter I bought back in 2007 was to blame for most of the flare issues. Here's a side-by-side comparison:
The B+W UV filter fared much better than the Canon UV filter did under the same conditions. So for the remainder of the shoot, I made sure to only use the B+W filter on both lenses to get an equal comparison.
Here's a larger comparison of both photos above with the B+W filter:
Here's a larger comparison of both photos above with the B+W filter:
They look pretty similar to me, although there is some fading out near the bottom of the original 70-200mm image, whereas the version II has consistent color and contrast to the edges of the image. As for sharpness, here is a crop in on both images:
People say the version II is much sharper, but in this specific instance, they look pretty comparable.
Here's another comparison with Dixie-dog getting in on the modeling action:
Here's another comparison with Dixie-dog getting in on the modeling action:
And a crop in on the same images for sharpness comparison:
I don't know, the original 70-200 is looking good to me. And mind you, I've owned that specific lens for 10 years.
Here's one more shot:
Here's one more shot:
And a crop in on the above photos:
In conclusion, I would say the version II lens is slightly better. If you're a seasoned pro who can afford it, it's definitely the way to go. But the original 70-200mm 2.8 IS is still a stellar lens. And especially for the cost. The version II is selling new for $2,400 (the $400 instant rebate on B&H available through Feb. 2nd brings it down to $2,000!). And the original 70-200mm 2.8 IS is only available used and they are going on eBay for $1,100-$1,400.
To see more photos shot with my original Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens, click here!
To find more info/reviews on my gear and other resources I offer photographers, click here!
To see more photos shot with my original Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens, click here!
To find more info/reviews on my gear and other resources I offer photographers, click here!
Comments
