[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by m3thods

Hey Senna I think you have the resources to help me out with this question:


I'm looking into a Canon-mount 70-200 2.8 for myself as a graduation gift this April. There are 3 that I'm looking at- The Sigma OS, and the two Canon IS lenses. After reading the review on dpreview for the Sigma, I've very disappointed at the results. For $100 more I'd probably get the mk1.

My question is: How "tangible" is the difference between the mk1 and mk2? I recall you said that the AF is faster, but I don't remember you saying anything about the colour rendition or the added sharpness.

I'm not a professional, nor do I plan on being paid to take pictures, which is why I'm having trouble justifying a 3k purchase on a single lens. My main concern is the "softness @ 200mm", which several reviews on FM and dpreview say of the mk1. The same is applicable to the Sigma.

If you have the time, are you able to do a comparison shot at 200mm between the two Canons (100% crops as well)? I'd like to see the actual differences, and if it's night and day, I'll just save the extra $700 for the mk2 (and feel terrible about it ) Thanks in advanced!

I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one.