invity - Wow Awesome Picture Quality.. Thank you Very much for sharing..
Julie - Just saw that I could comment on your blog. Sorry for the email instead of asking for the information here. I'm the one with the 70-200 mm question.
Blessings,
Julie
Flor Branham - Thanks so much! This is exactly what I needed to make my decision :)
Melissa Jill :) - Thanks Vern! The original 70-200 that I compared here is the IS version. But it is no longer available new.
Vern S - Really helpful post!
I think you link to a non-IS 70-200mm lens. I don't think the previous model had IS. Am I incorrect? Again thanks.
Melissa Jill - Hi Stephanie,
I don't have a blog post on UV filters. But they're a no-brainer. If for nothing else, you should have one to protect your lens. A filter saved my 70-200 once when I dropped it. The filter shattered but the lens was ok. I would just get one from that brand I mentioned in the post -- B+W and you're good to go!
Soumen Nath - The various online reviews may be paid ones and are definitely heavily in favor of the new one. However, your comparison is an eye opener. Thanks for taking time out to do the review and post it.
Stephanie Barnes - Hi Melissa,
Great post...I shoot NIkon not Canon but have noticed about the same difference in the the old/new version of this Nikon lens as well.
I was wondering is you have a post somewhere about uv filters how they work and how to use them. I have never used them and didn't realize they could make such a difference.THanks!
Merck - Hi Melissa, yes Indeed I can see a slight difference as far as quality goes. Thanks so much for the side by side comparison of the two lenses. I was looking forward to this review from you. Thanks lots!
Melissa Jill - @Paul -- hmm…didn't notice myself, but there could be a slight difference. I know the new version II has a slightly closer focusing distance. You can shoot 1.2 meters away from the subject whereas with the original lens, you had to be 1.4 meters away.
Melissa Jill - Hi Kari -- I hear that the stabilizer works for more settings, so it may allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds without blurring. Unfortunately, I didn't test that aspect.
Crystal Madsen - I love this blog. Great comparisons between the two lenses. I love my 70-200 and can't wait to upgrade. Thanks
Tira J - We upgraded to the newer version last summer for that wedding we shot in Montana. We needed to have two 70-200's so we caved. I use that lens for ALL of my outdoor family and baby sessions now and LOVE it. It is in my opinion much sharper than the other. Maybe I will have to do a little comparison post too. LOVE my pal Dixie Dog! I've missed seeing her on the blog. Hope you are having a great week MJ! p.s. are you going to WPPI?
Kari Jeanne - Dixie & Sara make wonderful models ;) Do you think that the new lens makes a bigger difference in less than ideal situations - dark churches, etc. that you encounter on wedding days? Crazy how much difference changing filters made!
Paul - Did you notice any variation in depth of field? Assuming both were set at f2.8, the version two looks to be shallower. I wouldn't have thought that was possible.....
Candice - I just looked through your blog and what's in your camera bag. Do you have a post on which filter/s you like best? I need to get one for my 50mm 1.2 and am not sure what to look for.
Charrie - I just got the original used about 6 mos. ago and love it. I just wish it wasn't so heavy. Hard to hang on to for a 2-hr shoot!