Isn't that the aim of any business? To be able to make profit from their products?
Yes, which is why it's kind of silly to complain that "it's about the market, not us" (see above). As Ziggy notes, "we" are a part of Canon's market, but you have to expect that Canon's plans are ultimately intended to benefit Canon. Anything they do that makes us happy is just part of a greater plan of making themselves more successful. This is just how things work in a capitalist society.
Just for the fun of it, I think a little scepticism is healthy. It would certainly have been wiser a year ago when everyone was so trusting of the mutual benevolence of the marketplace.
There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on whether or not this is going to be an improvement over previous version or not. But I am a little skeptical it will be a big improvement.
There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on whether or not this is going to be an improvement over previous version or not. But I am a little skeptical it will be a big improvement.
Charts are fine, but the real question is, will this lens make that much of a difference in the end product?
Maybe running USM at Radius 0.4 instead of 0.3 would give you the same print results.
Move that contrast slider in camera RAW to +5 instead of leaving it at zero.
I'll agree that getting the best shot out of the camera is always the best way to shoot.
I shoot JPG's, no one knows this better than me.
But here's the question I have. Will there be a bigger difference between the old and new versions, on just
the latest cameras from Canon, or across the board including the older (40D, 50D, 1DMKII)? Pro line to the Rebel line?
How about full frame, or crop sensor?
Who is this lens made for, and where will it shine brightest over the old version?
Comparing shots from the MKI and MKII versions, would I see more of a difference
in the shots taken with my 30D, or my 5DMKII?
I'm not trying to start an argument, it just that I've heard so many great things about the mark I version
of this lens, I'm having a hard time believing that this can be that much sharper, faster, with more contrast.
Charts are fine, but the real question is, will this lens make that much of a difference in the end product?
Maybe running USM at Radius 0.4 instead of 0.3 would give you the same print results.
Move that contrast slider in camera RAW to +5 instead of leaving it at zero.
I'll agree that getting the best shot out of the camera is always the best way to shoot.
I shoot JPG's, no one knows this better than me.
But here's the question I have. Will there be a bigger difference between the old and new versions, on just
the latest cameras from Canon, or across the board including the older (40D, 50D, 1DMKII)? Pro line to the Rebel line?
How about full frame, or crop sensor?
Who is this lens made for, and where will it shine brightest over the old version?
Comparing shots from the MKI and MKII versions, would I see more of a difference
in the shots taken with my 30D, or my 5DMKII?
I'm not trying to start an argument, it just that I've heard so many great things about the mark I version
of this lens, I'm having a hard time believing that this can be that much sharper, faster, with more contrast.
Hear! Hear! It's made to "refresh" the lens's presence in the marketplace alongside newcomer competitors.
But here's the question I have. Will there be a bigger difference between the old and new versions, on just the latest cameras from Canon, or across the board including the older (40D, 50D, 1DMKII)? Pro line to the Rebel line? How about full frame, or crop sensor?
That depends. The highest-resolution crop-frame sensors will probably benefit most if there is a significant increase in overall sharpness. The full-frame sensors will benefit if there are improvements in the corners. All cameras will benefit if there is a reduction in geometric distortion (not that the old lens has much of that to begin with). Improvements in IS will benefit photographers who take longer hand-held exposures, regardless of sensor. Faster AF will be good for sports shooters. I could go on, but you get the idea.
The key question is which, if any, of these improvements will really be all that significant that people using the old lens would want to upgrade.
Since the old 70-200 f/2.8 IS is nearly ten years old, and newer lenses are known to have more effective IS, I can believe that there will be at least a one-stop improvement in IS in the new lens. This, by itself, is worthwhile, but not worth $2000+ to me when the old lens's IS has been good enough for me most of the time.
The MTF chart does indicate some improvement in sharpness. But the old lens is still one of the sharpest I own; it's sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8L to my eyes, and in practice quite competitive with many primes from f/3.2 on up. If the new lens is sharper wide open, that would be nice, but I still don't think I'd spend $2000+ just for that.
I'm not trying to start an argument, it just that I've heard so many great things about the mark I version of this lens, I'm having a hard time believing that this can be that much sharper, faster, with more contrast.
Right. I can believe the new lens will be a bit better, a bit more competitive with the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, which is getting absolute rave reviews. I can believe that someone who doesn't already own a 70-200mm lens might prefer the new one even if it's a little more expensive. But I'm not convinced that it's worth my while to upgrade if I already own the old 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. Sure, I could sell the old one and probably get most of my original purchase price back (especially since there was a $200 rebate on when I bought it). But is it worth the bother? Will I get any pictures that I couldn't have gotten before? I kind of doubt it. Someone who shoots sports for a living may feel differently. To each his own.
Right. I can believe the new lens will be a bit better, a bit more competitive with the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, which is getting absolute rave reviews. I can believe that someone who doesn't already own a 70-200mm lens might prefer the new one even if it's a little more expensive. But I'm not convinced that it's worth my while to upgrade if I already own the old 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. Sure, I could sell the old one and probably get most of my original purchase price back (especially since there was a $200 rebate on when I bought it). But is it worth the bother? Will I get any pictures that I couldn't have gotten before? I kind of doubt it. Someone who shoots sports for a living may feel differently. To each his own.
My exact feelings on this. You should buy what you need, but if you have the means, who's stopping you? If it is part of your living, than you should buy the gear that will give you positive impact. So Sports shooters will probably need to invest in getting that one.
I don't have a 70-200 f.2.8 IS. So for me, if I can get either version I will be happy.
The only information we have to compare the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM II and the previous lens is the charts supplied by Canon. Canon is unique in that MTF charts for Canon lenses are not empirical, as other manufacturers' MTF charts. Canon choses to use a calculated approach, based upon lens design alone.
I place little stock in MTF charts myself. I place only partial stock in formal reviews. The sample variation even in formal reviews is normally limited to a single copy of the lens, and there is too much variation in manufacturing to draw an absolute conclusion.
Rather, I use every resource. I use formal reviews to draw basic comparisons. I also look for "user" reviews to confirm the formal reviews. I look for trends in the user reviews to try to make some sense of general truth. MTF charts are generally far down in my selection criteria.
Finally, even when I get a new lens I perform my own testing to draw my own conclusions about suitability of an individual lens for my applications. I don't depend on anything else as a final determinant than my own tests. I have failed many lenses due to my own tests. You, the DGrin readers, know of one such round of testing.:
In that thread you will see that I tested 2 copies of a Sigma zoom lens to determine that it would not be suitable for my purposes. It was not a bad lens and many others had apparently better copies than I got. It could have been a production problem. I don't know and I don't honestly care.
The point is that we can scrutinize data until "the cows come home", but none of that matters in the end. What matters is "your" application of the "individual" product and how it suits your needs.
All we have to judge the new Canon lenses by, so far, is their Canon generated MTF charts. Talking about absolutes at this point is just wishful thinking. It will take lierally years to understand whether the new lenses truly surpass the previous versions in image quality, and to determine production variations in quality.
The only information we have to compare the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM II and the previous lens is the charts supplied by Canon. Canon is unique in that MTF charts for Canon lenses are not empirical, as other manufacturers' MTF charts. Canon choses to use a calculated approach, based upon lens design alone.
I did not know that. Thanks. It's an interesting point. I suppose the CAD software they use to design lenses probably has the ability to generate various types of analyses, including MTF charts.
I don't quite agree that the charts are the only information we have. The charts, rather, are one part of a larger set of claims made by Canon. The MTF charts claim improvements in sharpness. Canon also claims 4-stop IS, faster AF (though they do not quantify exactly how much faster), and so on. It's all in the press release and the specs on the Canon USA web site.
My point is that even if we take their word for all of this, I have difficulty believing that the new lens is so much better than the old one that I should spend the money for the new one. The old lens is the best zoom I've ever used. It is credible that faster AF and better IS may be significant for some photographers, but I've been happy enough with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS that I doubt the improvements would be critically important to me. Your mileage may vary, depending on how much better the new lens actually proves to be in any particular regard.
I place little stock in MTF charts myself. I place only partial stock in formal reviews. The sample variation even in formal reviews is normally limited to a single copy of the lens, and there is too much variation in manufacturing to draw an absolute conclusion.
Sure. You can see one problem with reviews by reading more than one and noting that they often reach different conclusions. I can read at DPReview.com or SLRgear.com that some lens is "tack-sharp even wide open" and then look at the ISO chart samples at the-digital-picture.com and see that it doesn't look that great wide open. Since these sites all use good (though different) empirical testing methodologies to evaluate lenses, sample variation seems like the most likely explanation.
This does not mean that the reviews aren't valid, but it does mean that your experience with a lens may be somewhat different from any particular reviewer's.
The point is that we can scrutinize data until "the cows come home", but none of that matters in the end. What matters is "your" application of the "individual" product and how it suits your needs.
True, but the other point is that right now Canon's press release and specs are all we have, and people want to talk about this because it's the hot news of the week in Canon-land. It's completely true that nobody should claim to have any final answers. Conceivably the new lens could turn out to be so mind-bogglingly great that I will change my mind and buy it. Or it could actually be, in some ways, worse than the old lens. We'll have to wait and see.
Corporate marketing being what it is, though, I don't expect the lens to actually be better than the claims Canon is making for it, and those claims, while nice, aren't tempting me to upgrade.
It will be interesting to see how the new lens pans out in the real world. I for one, have become very jaded to Canon's marketing, and worse, their lacking QC given my experiences with their gear within the last 3 years especially, and I've owned canon pro gear going back 30 years now to compare with.
My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the workhorse lens for me, and it's a fantastic lens. Very sharp. Having said that, my new 135L is very noticeably sharper than my 70-200. Who knew
If the new vII is that much sharper/crisper than verI, it might be time to upgrade.
But, I'm not going to put on my Guinea pig suite this time
My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the workhorse lens for me, and it's a fantastic lens. Very sharp. Having said that, my new 135L is very noticeably sharper than my 70-200. Who knew
That's good to know. I've been thinking of getting the 135L for the extra stop of aperture. I'm going to wait a few weeks, though, since Canon is rumored to be announcing some new stuff in February and for all I know they might have a 135L f/2 IS up their sleeves. I kind of doubt it, but I can dream...
Reading my own comments it would be easy to assume that I am a killjoy regarding the new 70-200mm lens. I actually do have high expectations for this zoom but we just don't have enough data to make a firm determination. My hope is that this is a worthy successor to a proven workhorse and big seller in the Canon lens lineup.
Reading my own comments it would be easy to assume that I am a killjoy regarding the new 70-200mm lens. I actually do have high expectations for this zoom but we just don't have enough data to make a firm determination. My hope is that this is a worthy successor to a proven workhorse and big seller in the Canon lens lineup.
Oh, of course. I'm sure all of us Canon shooters want it to be at least as good as the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, which is getting really enthusiastic reviews even from people who didn't expect it to be a significant improvement over the old model. I understood your position to be cautiously hopeful but deferring judgment until independent empirical data is available (including the opportunity to test it out for yourself), rather than pessimistic or cynical.
It will be interesting to see how the new lens pans out in the real world. I for one, have become very jaded to Canon's marketing, and worse, their lacking QC given my experiences with their gear within the last 3 years especially, and I've owned canon pro gear going back 30 years now to compare with.
...
But, I'm not going to put on my Guinea pig suite this time
Reading my own comments it would be easy to assume that I am a killjoy regarding the new 70-200mm lens. I actually do have high expectations for this zoom but we just don't have enough data to make a firm determination. My hope is that this is a worthy successor to a proven workhorse and big seller in the Canon lens lineup.
Someone previously described your comments in this thread as realistic. And I concur, realistic, just with the addition of rose colored spectacles...D
I said before you couldn't be more of a gear freak than me, I start to shake even at the thought of new technology...
In any case, I believe everything you say, once I correct the color cast...
Rather than wondering if this new version warrants replacing one's own 70-200 2.8 IS L mark I, I would like to ask the masses if, based on the specs, it warrants buying the new version for, say $500-$600 more, rather than buying the original model.
I'm in the market for this beast, whether mark I or II, and I would like to know if you believe it is $600 better than the mark I, based on preliminary analysis. What are your thoughts?
Rather than wondering if this new version warrants replacing one's own 70-200 2.8 IS L mark I, I would like to ask the masses if, based on the specs, it warrants buying the new version for, say $500-$600 more, rather than buying the original model.
I'm in the market for this beast, whether mark I or II, and I would like to know if you believe it is $600 better than the mark I, based on preliminary analysis. What are your thoughts?
CW,
I think your asking a question here that only you can really answer...
What is your criteria for the lens?
Will you require:
1~2 stops more IS than ver1?
Are you steady handed or shaky?
I can, and have done many a time, hand-hold (ver1 IS) down to 1/4 sec @ 200mm.
Will you require:
Better edge sharpness than ver1?
What will you mainly be shooting with this lens?
Portraits? ~ Won't you shoot it wide for that creamy bokeh anyway?
Sports? ~ Edge sharpness usually doesn't matter
Will most of your shots with this lens utilize bokeh or will you add vignette later anyway?
Better build? ~ Yeah right ~ technically I guess they could improve that, but I've NEVER heard a complaint on the build of this lens.
So, if you just want the latest and greatest and don't mind spending the extra for it ~ what's the issue?
If you consider the above, the ver1 might suite you well.
Again, I think only you can make this kind of decission...
Yes, I see your point, and certainly the utility of the lens plays a part in whether or not the improvements make sense...
Is this lens $600 better? That part I am struggling with. I'm trying to separate myself from my usual "latest, greatest" disease and be pragmatic about the decision I have to make.
I'm headed to Chile in March to shoot a new winery opening for a magazine. Sure I could rent the mark I or go without until version II is released (sadly a month later) but I'd love to buy it straight away and have some fun beforehand. Tough decision.
Is this lens $600 better? That part I am struggling with. I'm trying to separate myself from my usual "latest, greatest" disease and be pragmatic about the decision I have to make.
I'm headed to Chile in March to shoot a new winery opening for a magazine. Sure I could rent the mark I or go without until version II is released (sadly a month later) but I'd love to buy it straight away and have some fun beforehand. Tough decision.
Things usualy become pretty clear if one approaches this from a
bussiness perspective:
It makes sense if you plull in the extra $600 with the extra capablities this
lens gives you as a professional photographer. For some it is the extra stop
of handholdability , for some it might be the (still to be seen) better quality
or what other improvement the new lens has.
just by 2 cents
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Comments
I wouldn't say he has rose-colored glasses; he just accepts the fact that Canon is in business to make profits on their products.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Ah, so succinctly put!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Isn't that the aim of any business? To be able to make profit from their products?
www.tednghiem.com
Yes, which is why it's kind of silly to complain that "it's about the market, not us" (see above). As Ziggy notes, "we" are a part of Canon's market, but you have to expect that Canon's plans are ultimately intended to benefit Canon. Anything they do that makes us happy is just part of a greater plan of making themselves more successful. This is just how things work in a capitalist society.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Just for the fun of it, I think a little scepticism is healthy. It would certainly have been wiser a year ago when everyone was so trusting of the mutual benevolence of the marketplace.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Here is the MTF chart for the older lens at 70mm:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28ismtf1.gif
... and the new lens at 70mm:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/Lenses_2010/EF70-200mm/profile/ef70-200lisiiu_wide_mtf.gif
Older at 200mm:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28ismtf2.gif
... and the new lens at 200mm:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/Lenses_2010/EF70-200mm/profile/ef70-200lisiiu_tele_mtf.gif
Here is how to read the charts:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks Ziggy -- I also did a comparison between the 70-200 2.8 and the 4.0. That's where I got confused
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Charts are fine, but the real question is, will this lens make that much of a difference in the end product?
Maybe running USM at Radius 0.4 instead of 0.3 would give you the same print results.
Move that contrast slider in camera RAW to +5 instead of leaving it at zero.
I'll agree that getting the best shot out of the camera is always the best way to shoot.
I shoot JPG's, no one knows this better than me.
But here's the question I have. Will there be a bigger difference between the old and new versions, on just
the latest cameras from Canon, or across the board including the older (40D, 50D, 1DMKII)? Pro line to the Rebel line?
How about full frame, or crop sensor?
Who is this lens made for, and where will it shine brightest over the old version?
Comparing shots from the MKI and MKII versions, would I see more of a difference
in the shots taken with my 30D, or my 5DMKII?
I'm not trying to start an argument, it just that I've heard so many great things about the mark I version
of this lens, I'm having a hard time believing that this can be that much sharper, faster, with more contrast.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Hear! Hear! It's made to "refresh" the lens's presence in the marketplace alongside newcomer competitors.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I think Canon just got scared by the badass new Nikon 70-200 VRII.
That depends. The highest-resolution crop-frame sensors will probably benefit most if there is a significant increase in overall sharpness. The full-frame sensors will benefit if there are improvements in the corners. All cameras will benefit if there is a reduction in geometric distortion (not that the old lens has much of that to begin with). Improvements in IS will benefit photographers who take longer hand-held exposures, regardless of sensor. Faster AF will be good for sports shooters. I could go on, but you get the idea.
The key question is which, if any, of these improvements will really be all that significant that people using the old lens would want to upgrade.
Since the old 70-200 f/2.8 IS is nearly ten years old, and newer lenses are known to have more effective IS, I can believe that there will be at least a one-stop improvement in IS in the new lens. This, by itself, is worthwhile, but not worth $2000+ to me when the old lens's IS has been good enough for me most of the time.
The MTF chart does indicate some improvement in sharpness. But the old lens is still one of the sharpest I own; it's sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8L to my eyes, and in practice quite competitive with many primes from f/3.2 on up. If the new lens is sharper wide open, that would be nice, but I still don't think I'd spend $2000+ just for that.
Right. I can believe the new lens will be a bit better, a bit more competitive with the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, which is getting absolute rave reviews. I can believe that someone who doesn't already own a 70-200mm lens might prefer the new one even if it's a little more expensive. But I'm not convinced that it's worth my while to upgrade if I already own the old 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. Sure, I could sell the old one and probably get most of my original purchase price back (especially since there was a $200 rebate on when I bought it). But is it worth the bother? Will I get any pictures that I couldn't have gotten before? I kind of doubt it. Someone who shoots sports for a living may feel differently. To each his own.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
My exact feelings on this. You should buy what you need, but if you have the means, who's stopping you? If it is part of your living, than you should buy the gear that will give you positive impact. So Sports shooters will probably need to invest in getting that one.
I don't have a 70-200 f.2.8 IS. So for me, if I can get either version I will be happy.
www.tednghiem.com
I place little stock in MTF charts myself. I place only partial stock in formal reviews. The sample variation even in formal reviews is normally limited to a single copy of the lens, and there is too much variation in manufacturing to draw an absolute conclusion.
Rather, I use every resource. I use formal reviews to draw basic comparisons. I also look for "user" reviews to confirm the formal reviews. I look for trends in the user reviews to try to make some sense of general truth. MTF charts are generally far down in my selection criteria.
Finally, even when I get a new lens I perform my own testing to draw my own conclusions about suitability of an individual lens for my applications. I don't depend on anything else as a final determinant than my own tests. I have failed many lenses due to my own tests. You, the DGrin readers, know of one such round of testing.:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116&page=5
In that thread you will see that I tested 2 copies of a Sigma zoom lens to determine that it would not be suitable for my purposes. It was not a bad lens and many others had apparently better copies than I got. It could have been a production problem. I don't know and I don't honestly care.
The point is that we can scrutinize data until "the cows come home", but none of that matters in the end. What matters is "your" application of the "individual" product and how it suits your needs.
All we have to judge the new Canon lenses by, so far, is their Canon generated MTF charts. Talking about absolutes at this point is just wishful thinking. It will take lierally years to understand whether the new lenses truly surpass the previous versions in image quality, and to determine production variations in quality.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I did not know that. Thanks. It's an interesting point. I suppose the CAD software they use to design lenses probably has the ability to generate various types of analyses, including MTF charts.
I don't quite agree that the charts are the only information we have. The charts, rather, are one part of a larger set of claims made by Canon. The MTF charts claim improvements in sharpness. Canon also claims 4-stop IS, faster AF (though they do not quantify exactly how much faster), and so on. It's all in the press release and the specs on the Canon USA web site.
My point is that even if we take their word for all of this, I have difficulty believing that the new lens is so much better than the old one that I should spend the money for the new one. The old lens is the best zoom I've ever used. It is credible that faster AF and better IS may be significant for some photographers, but I've been happy enough with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS that I doubt the improvements would be critically important to me. Your mileage may vary, depending on how much better the new lens actually proves to be in any particular regard.
Sure. You can see one problem with reviews by reading more than one and noting that they often reach different conclusions. I can read at DPReview.com or SLRgear.com that some lens is "tack-sharp even wide open" and then look at the ISO chart samples at the-digital-picture.com and see that it doesn't look that great wide open. Since these sites all use good (though different) empirical testing methodologies to evaluate lenses, sample variation seems like the most likely explanation.
This does not mean that the reviews aren't valid, but it does mean that your experience with a lens may be somewhat different from any particular reviewer's.
True, but the other point is that right now Canon's press release and specs are all we have, and people want to talk about this because it's the hot news of the week in Canon-land. It's completely true that nobody should claim to have any final answers. Conceivably the new lens could turn out to be so mind-bogglingly great that I will change my mind and buy it. Or it could actually be, in some ways, worse than the old lens. We'll have to wait and see.
Corporate marketing being what it is, though, I don't expect the lens to actually be better than the claims Canon is making for it, and those claims, while nice, aren't tempting me to upgrade.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the workhorse lens for me, and it's a fantastic lens. Very sharp. Having said that, my new 135L is very noticeably sharper than my 70-200. Who knew
If the new vII is that much sharper/crisper than verI, it might be time to upgrade.
But, I'm not going to put on my Guinea pig suite this time
Now that's funny.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
That's good to know. I've been thinking of getting the 135L for the extra stop of aperture. I'm going to wait a few weeks, though, since Canon is rumored to be announcing some new stuff in February and for all I know they might have a 135L f/2 IS up their sleeves. I kind of doubt it, but I can dream...
Heh-heh. Me neither.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Oh, of course. I'm sure all of us Canon shooters want it to be at least as good as the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, which is getting really enthusiastic reviews even from people who didn't expect it to be a significant improvement over the old model. I understood your position to be cautiously hopeful but deferring judgment until independent empirical data is available (including the opportunity to test it out for yourself), rather than pessimistic or cynical.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
My sentiments, dude!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Someone previously described your comments in this thread as realistic. And I concur, realistic, just with the addition of rose colored spectacles...
I said before you couldn't be more of a gear freak than me, I start to shake even at the thought of new technology...
In any case, I believe everything you say, once I correct the color cast...
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I'm in the market for this beast, whether mark I or II, and I would like to know if you believe it is $600 better than the mark I, based on preliminary analysis. What are your thoughts?
(shoot first, then ask questions)
www.cdub.ca | www.cdubphoto.smugmug.com | Twitter | Canon 5DII + Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 580EX II, Gitzo GT1541 + Acratech GV2L
CW,
I think your asking a question here that only you can really answer...
What is your criteria for the lens?
Will you require:
1~2 stops more IS than ver1?
Are you steady handed or shaky?
I can, and have done many a time, hand-hold (ver1 IS) down to 1/4 sec @ 200mm.
Will you require:
Better edge sharpness than ver1?
What will you mainly be shooting with this lens?
Portraits? ~ Won't you shoot it wide for that creamy bokeh anyway?
Sports? ~ Edge sharpness usually doesn't matter
Will most of your shots with this lens utilize bokeh or will you add vignette later anyway?
Better build? ~ Yeah right ~ technically I guess they could improve that, but I've NEVER heard a complaint on the build of this lens.
So, if you just want the latest and greatest and don't mind spending the extra for it ~ what's the issue?
If you consider the above, the ver1 might suite you well.
Again, I think only you can make this kind of decission...
Is this lens $600 better? That part I am struggling with. I'm trying to separate myself from my usual "latest, greatest" disease and be pragmatic about the decision I have to make.
I'm headed to Chile in March to shoot a new winery opening for a magazine. Sure I could rent the mark I or go without until version II is released (sadly a month later) but I'd love to buy it straight away and have some fun beforehand. Tough decision.
(shoot first, then ask questions)
www.cdub.ca | www.cdubphoto.smugmug.com | Twitter | Canon 5DII + Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 580EX II, Gitzo GT1541 + Acratech GV2L
Things usualy become pretty clear if one approaches this from a
bussiness perspective:
It makes sense if you plull in the extra $600 with the extra capablities this
lens gives you as a professional photographer. For some it is the extra stop
of handholdability , for some it might be the (still to be seen) better quality
or what other improvement the new lens has.
just by 2 cents
― Edward Weston