Good value for money!

[matthijs]

<p>David, lots.</p>

<p>But not when they need f2.8 of course.</p>

<p>Especially (professional) landscape shooters prefer the f4 but other types of professionals use it too when portability and flexibility is of higher import than aperture.</p>

[davebell]

<p>Matthijs,</p>

<p>Agreed for something like landscapes. What other types opf professionals, if you don't mind me asking, would prefer the F4 version...? And we're talking about professionals here, not hobbyists.</p>

[davebell]

<p>By the way the MK ii version of this lens is a cracker and definitely better than the Mk i. I will trade my Mk i sometime in near future for the Mk ii. Primary reason is reduced minimum focus distance as I use this lens often in bedrooms for bridal prep and portraits and the Mk i is sometimes restrictive in small spaces.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>People are quite negative and sarcastic in this thread, but there is a ring of truth to much of it. With regards the specific exclaimation "Good value for money!", well as has been pointed out, exactly the same image could be taken with a lens costing $2,100 less. So "No!" has to be the reply.</p>

<p>Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII good value when compared to the MkI version of the lens? Again no, it is an improvement, but good value, surely not.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Nice lens Husain.</p>

[hakhtar]

No doubt the lens is a very good performer and I'm very pleased with my investment. No, I don't think that the kit lenses could produce the same quality with the same iffy settings that I used at the time.

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>" No, I don't think that the kit lenses could produce the same quality with the same iffy settings that I used at the time."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A centered subject shot at f9 with no real detail in the edge or corner is as mild a lens test as possible. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=4&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3">This link</a> shows the center sharpness is certainly comparable and that is where your subject is.</p>

<p>I am not suggesting for one second that the 70-300 is, generally, the equal of the 70-200, obviously it isn't, but for this one specific image, especially at this size, I doubt if anybody could tell the difference if you shot with either lens.</p>

<p>To show your lenses true quality take an image with an off center subject at f2.8 and then look for edge detail.</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>And here is the edge detail, cheaper lenses can't shoot at f2.8 and they can't show edge detail like this. If those kinds of things are important to you you need good lenses, though an 85 f1.8, the 135 f2, or even the 200 f2.8, again, could do the same thing much cheaper.</p>

<p>What the 70-200's f2.8's do give you is an unmatched flexibility and speed combination that for many, me included, make for a good packaged value.</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously though, it is an excellent lens, and it really shines @f2.8->f3.5. It is vastly sharper (at those apertures) than even the vaunted 70-200/4 L IS. ;-) --Marcus Ian</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You gotta love it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>