Canon EF 70-200 2.8 IS USM i vs ii Comparison (With download files) 

Of course! Glad you like it!

Thanks Jeff!!

I didn't know you were getting into photography, Ted Nugent! Hahaha

@@sethc.art.wright Lol, i wish i was ted. I'm def his biggest fan!!

Thanks!

Oh that’s cool! Yeah I didn’t think about that but have several remote flashes I could have used. I sold my first version unfortunately, but I’ve used the second version for several weddings and portraits since making this and I have to say, it’s kicks so much more ass than the first version! Especially in color. It’s weird to think a lens changes color, but it does. It looks so much better.

For sure Alvaro! Glad it could help!

Thanks Ronald I appreciate that! And I just bought the 70-200 RF 2.8 so I'm trying to get a video comparing these two lenses up soon! :)

hows the autofocus in photo and video?

adapter??

May i know what k8nd of adapter on the a6600?

Sweet man I'm glad I could help!! Keep killin it out there!

Awesome glad you got it!

Thanks! You're welcome!

That's good to know! That's what I've heard! So I'm going to stick with the second version :)

@@sethc.art.wright 👍

For sure James! Thanks so much! And yeah I also found my 2.8 v2 for $900 and I haven't regretted it one bit.

@@sethc.art.wright where do you guys find them for that price cause ive been searching

Nice man!

For sure man! The F4 is great, but the 2.8 II is just phenomenal if you can save up for it!

Thank you! :)

Sweet!!!! Congrats!! I'm thinking about getting the RF 70-200 already, even though it's WAYYYY more expensive! If I do, I'm going to do a comparison between the version II EF and the RF. I kind of want to rent it to do the comparison too just to really see that it makes sense to buy it before I do.

Awesome you should definitely do it!

Of course, thank you :)

It fucks up with the sharpness if you don't.

Same thing I’ve heard

You're welcome!

Sorry I don't know about lens hoods at all haha. It probably says on Canon's website somewhere.

I switched to F4 because it creates less depth but a sharper image on the subject. So I just wanted to see how sharp they were at F4

Agree to disagree, but I appreciate the comment 🙂 every tool and spec serves a purpose. The difference is knowing why you want that tool rather than blindly buying it because someone else tells you it’s needed.

You will get there!! Get the 75-300 while you wait, that lens is pretty fun and only cost like $100 or less :)

@@sethc.art.wright nice recommendation. I just picked up version one from OfferUp $350 in mint condition.

For real! And I’m a little skeptical of the RF not being weather sealed. I think this EF version II is the best 70-200 to get.

I love the version 1 non is lens, personally. For myself, I don't see a reason to get an is lens for my application.

Thanks!

It doesn't make any difference, I just chose to have it on. Why not?

@@sethc.art.wright Hi Seth, thank you for replying. I was just pointing it out because it didnt make any sense to me that since your camera is stable, and since IS element is still active, it is better to turn the IS off. Here is what Canon representative have to say about having IS and tripod: "First off, let's be clear -- any discussion about Image Stabilization on a tripod refers ONLY to a truly rock-solid tripod, on a totally firm surface without vibrations from passing traffic and so on. In many real-world situations, we're using tripods and other supports in conditions that really aren't totally solid. A good test, before discussing the question any further: the next time you're mounted on a tripod, turn your camera's Live View on, and magnify the LCD monitor image to its greatest setting. It's sometimes amazing how much shake and movement there really is, even on a tripod. The point is pretty clear. In any situation where you're not truly rock-steady, whether you're mounted on a tripod, or certainly a monopod, using Image Stabilization normally makes a great deal of sense. However, since the launch of the first Canon Image Stabilized lens (the EF 75-300mm IS zoom lens, from 1995), Canon engineers have recommended switching IS off if and when you're mounted on a tripod. Again, this pre-supposes it's a truly rock-solid tripod. Canon's optical Image Stabilization has definitely evolved since its launch in 1995, and there are now different versions for lightweight, less-expensive lenses (like the EF-S 18-55mm standard zoom for compact cameras) than the more advanced IS units we see in (for example) L-series super-telephoto lenses. Basically, current Canon EF and EF-S lenses can detect when there's a total absence of "shake" (in other words, solidly tripod mounted), and internally disable the Image Stabilization if it's left on. But in some lenses -- and it varies, depending on the IS design in the lens in question -- the moveable IS lens elements aren't locked and centered when the IS is disabled this way, and can sometimes be susceptible to slight movement during exposure. On such lenses, physically switching IS off with the switch on the lens allows the lens to lock and center these elements. Again, there are variables -- too many to get into here, since it depends on which lens model, which version (in other words, how old is the lens in question), and so on. But the bottom line remains pretty simple. It's safer to just switch IS off if you know there will be a complete absence of camera and lens movement during exposure. One other thing... Canon's optical Image Stabilization is designed as a tool to get sharper pictures at "normal" shutter speeds. While the slow-speed limits may vary slightly from one lens model to another, Image Stabilization is disabled if the system detects a shutter speed longer than roughly one full second. So for longer night-time exposures, expect to just turn IS off, because it won't have an effect in your final pictures. Hope this helps clarify the questions about Canon's optical Image Stabilization when cameras are tripod mounted."

@@richardgardner4252 I keep IS on all the time. Especially if I’m taking the lens on and off the tripod. Or using it on a monopod.

I agree. This wasn't a very useful comparison. Use a mirrorless R body and focus manually with the red indicators to check for exact focus.

Can you give an update? I'm dying to know how the mark 2 did.😧

@@WOLFTICKVIDEOS Mark II had hugely improved focus accuracy and the CA was nearly completely gone. Either Mark I has very poor CA performance or there may be some issues with this particular copy of the lens I got from B&H. Moderate vignetting at telephoto range seems about the same. Not sure if that's an issue with using a speed booster or it's the normal amount of vignetting expected for the lens. I don't have a FF body to test.

@@ken830 what I find funny is we always find ways to justify spending money. When the v1 first came out it was the greatest lens ever made… A lot of photographers say (including me) it’s not the gear it’s what you do with it… especially with the post processing that you will do anyway. It will make a v1 look like the v2. 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@tyroneparker8399 What I find funny is people who thought an 80 GB hard drive in a 1999 computer is more than you'll ever need, same with a 150 HP engine in a 1940's car, or a 480P DVD player in 1997

@@tyroneparker8399you read my mind. Most people (including myself) can get the v1 to look like a lens that’s far more expensive with just a little time in that good old software called photoshop. Shoot in RAW and than editing possibilities are endless.

Yes dude! The version one changed the whole way I shoot and set me up for the future. Learn to use it, then when the time comes, get the next lens if you think it will benefit you :)

@@sethc.art.wright thank you and I will get it this fridayyy

@@luigibro2340 Sweet man you're gonna love it!!

I just bought version one in mint condition on OfferUp for $350..👍👍🙏🏻

Coming at you soon!! With beautiful models!

Yeah I actually just saw his video yesterday! I do think he put more effort into his haha. But I did mine shortly after and hadn't seen his yet, and compared mostly what I thought was important and practical for my uses of the lens.

You should! It's awesome!

@@sethc.art.wright Just got it, I am freaking shocked how awesome it is

@@MishaRGB Dude so glad I could help! And yes it changed my whole experience using the lens! Hope you get some amazing pictures with it and can see the difference!

@@sethc.art.wright I had the same feeling when I got 85 mm, 1.2 MK2

@@MishaRGB Oh no way? I've never owned an 85mm just because I love the 50 1.2 and this 70-200. Together I get a lot of what I want. I've been considering saving to buy the RF 85 though. But maybe after a few other things haha.

F4 will always be extremely sharp. I show it in this video. 2.8 can be sharp but not always at every distance. That's where newer lenses do better. They focus better and quicker, they are sharper across more distances, and they have closer focusing distances. The first version of the 70-200 is sharp, but not as sharp as the newer lenses.

I don't have it anymore, but maybe? You can't argue with the colors though. There was a significant difference. The version 1 isn't unfocused, it just isn't as sharp as the version 2. I'm zooming in quite to examine these photos. And as you'll see at F4 both lenses are comparable in sharpness. The second version just does a better job at 2.8.

@@sethc.art.wright thanks!

@@BackboneNF For sure man! I think the version two is a great upgrade if you can get it!

😂😂

What? Haha.

They are not bad at all. They are excellent. Yes, the primes are very expensive. One is phenomenal, but so is the price tag.