I count five. Maybe six conversations I had with myself on the drive up to purchase the Canon 70-200 2.8l is ii. I had the mark i version. It was heralded, legendary and considered the best. The mark ii was considered better, more consistent sharpness throughout the entire range but was nearly twice as expensive. Also, we’re talking stills. This would probably be a no brainer, resolving power for a lens can be seen easily when looking at a raw still file. Would I be able to tell the difference when shooting video, which is what I use all my gear for. Could lenses make a difference on an image that isn’t even really true 1080p?
From the pictures above I think it’s safe to say yes. The top one was the original mark i. This was shot at 200mm on a 5d mark 3 wide open. I took a screen shot from the .mov file. The mark ii is sharper with better microcontrast. Now that the most pressing question was answered a new one propped up. Could I have saved the money and just sharpened the image in post. I loaded the clips into FCPX and ran an unsharp mask and a sharpen filter on top of that.
It’s closer, but not quite. If I sharpened it further, I would have gotta some pronounced, sharpened noise as well. The mark i is the top one by the way. The 70-200 range is great for getting that cinematic compressed background look. The mark ii focuses closer which comes in handy indoors. I couldn’t tell the difference when it comes to stabilization ro build quality. Lastly, you can still sharpen the mark ii.
Good call on the upgrade, right? Mike, hello?