Canon EF 70 200 F2 8 II vs III Which should you buy?

[@TheTroyallen23]

I bought the version III and when I compared it to my friend's version ii, I returned the version iii and bought a used, excellent condition version ii for $1,000. There simply is not a $1,000 difference between the v2 and v3. To my eyes I really have to look hard to see the differences between the III I bought and the II my friend has. If you really want the latest and greatest and money is not an object, the v3 is for you. If money is a concern, check out the lenses in person and try to compare your own photos with each lens as I have. Both are great lenses.

[@samguw]

Flaring was a big issue for me and I encountered it more often on the vii than viii. Both good lenses still but as a working professional, you pay more to solve specific issues that may occur

[@alaryani100]

It's the same lens, the difference is only the version numbers

[@phill5917]

@@alaryani100 And the Coating they added.

[@fun4sure2]

m2 is excellent lens

[@Zejakov]

I got V2 for 600$..It had only a little barely noticeable dot which can't even be seen on the pictures at all and i got everything that came with it. No way used V3 is worth for double the price

[@Harkescreative]

I love this man, I'm really happy to see a video that's a little less tech-oriented. I'm big on the techy videos but I think it's essential to understand how people are experiencing the equipment on a day-to-day basis. Great work man!

[@samguw]

Thank you so much!!! Really appreciate the understanding. Was actually pretty afraid of posting my own opinions cause I'm not the most technically proficient but I do shoot everyday. Really glad you got something out of it!

[@phill5917]

I've owned both lenese (mkii & iii) used them on 4 different cameras.. (6D,6D mk2, 5D4 & EOS R) & this is my opinion... If your big on image qaulity/sharpness and want the best then go with the mk3. If your on a budget and just want a 700-200 lens thats nearly as good as the mk3 then go with the mk2. Your can't go wrong with either one just make sure to by a well taken care of mkii if you decide to go the budget rought!

[@paulwhitehead1816]

I'll be purchasing the version iii as my first 70-200 lens, next week. Great review.

[@samguw]

Thank you very much! Hope you enjoy the lens! It's an amazing piece of glass

[@mikek24a]

Roger Cicala (owner of LensRental) tested a batch of version II vs III lenses and found them to be exactly the same lens (minus the new coating for the III). This review must of had a decent copy of the version II and an excellent III to compare to. Hard to know without a large sample to draw a conclusion from!

[@Mikri90]

This, I hate how so many people draw conclusions from a sample size of one i.e. one of each model. Cicala is the man to trust because he deals with literally DOZENS of units of each, for basically every single relevant lens out there.

[@tristandeggan123]

Just picked up a version III today! Your video 100% convinced me to opt for the newer lens. Great shots mate!

[@samguw]

Thanks Tristan! Hope you enjoy the lens!

[@cucumberandco]

You have sold me on the version 3 - thank you for making this video, your content is awesome

[@stevens8744]

Thankyou Sam you saved me from buying a 2nd hand II, Im now on the look out for a III. In Australia they are retailing for $3,299 which is crazy so on the look out for one thats between $2-2,500.

[@braystaylor]

Hey mate! Digidirect have the mark iii on sale right now for $2,600 as an EOFY sale.

[@stevens8744]

@@braystaylor thanks mate, got a second hand III for $2k!

[@braystaylor]

@@stevens8744 Even better! On the same hunt right now and saw your comment haha. Good deals around right now.

[@stevens8744]

@@braystaylor there is one on ebay for $2,500 with a "best offer" option, might be able to get them down closer to $2k. all II's are going for $1,200-$1,400 and i was close to buying one at $1,750 barely 3 months ago.

[@braystaylor]

@@stevens8744 Hey I appreciate that, I'll give it a look!

[@carnal032]

I love your blog men since day 1 thank you for sharing more tips and knowledge about camera and lenses , you are my inspiration about photography , and it's amazing, I'm Canon user too I wish I could have like that canon zoom lens, 70-200mm watching from Philippines

[@Photoshopuzr]

He's right about the verison 3, however for me after shooting with version 1 then moving to version 2 then when the version 3 came out, there was no need to upgrade, imo, I never had any issues missing shots and my images were all sharp, the normal eyes will never see it unless you really pixel peep, I saw from a few guys reviewing them side by side for me I prefer the version 2 its a grate balance in the colors and the difference wasn't obvious, if you got to peep to see the difference then maybe you really dont need to upgrade, theres more to lenses than just sharpness as well, but I love how the version 2 does its job, now that canon isnt making ef lenses anymore removing them to force people to move over to mirrorless its very clear the market is all about hype these days, if you got good glass keep them theres something very unique that will be said in the next 10years when rf lenses saturate the market. there's a guy in Hong Kong he is a camera collector he pointed out what makes the vintage lenses unique and that was really priceless when lenses are manufactured the elements used at the time is very different making your images have a special look to them, these days its all about sharpness, but if you look back in the days of 1930's you will see even up today software could never replicate those looks, and its so funny how people try to do it in software the marks is already set, I love vintage glass ill never sell my old glass, ill upgrade the body but the unique look and feel you get from older gen glass are one of a kind. my copy is great, even the canon 1.0 50mm yea its slow but there aint no glass like that leica .95 is as good as it gets but for 10k usd for some that maybe worth it. Great review man keep up the great work.

[@sadeqsegaraga8766]

You talked about not missing shots. Did you shoot sports with the mark ii? Please share your experience using it in sports.

[@SomethingonSodom]

I'm trying to decide if the IS is that much better on v1 vs v2 ?

[@SomethingonSodom]

For video

[@jimwilson717]

Great review Sam, just the answers I was hoping to find.

[@samguw]

Thanks Jim! glad I could help

[@Iphonmm]

Thx a lot for your narrative advise. I have used ii mostly for landscape photography and I suppose the overall capability is considered ok for me. I oftten generate the PANORAMIC images using 70-200 mm whenever I hiked the hills and be in the ocean of mist vibes / lately I use it more often for MILKY WAY photography capturing trees / rocks / any kind of natural surroundings as a foreground with MILKY WAY back behind. Of course, 2 shots at least one make sure FG is clicked focus then MILKY the second focus both shots will be taken when AF and stabiliser are turned OFF !! The only problem with the ii is "WEIGHT", imagine carrying both 24 mm + 70-200 mm uphills at 3-4 AM rushing to captire the MILKY WAY is so TORTURE > < , espcially during cold weather uphills in North of Thailand. Probably you have been around the world and I believe right now you might own RF 70-200 f2.8 completely right ^^ I wouldn't dare to touch upon the price of it, so I'm considering selling this ii f2.8 and take RF 70-200 f4 instead. Still have question if RF F4 can beat up EF F2.8 in all photographical aspects or not? HAHAHA Feeling like let go f2.8 coz it's heavy and take the newer model but compromising F value range to 4 ^^ and enjoy the light weight and continue to climb up the hills. What may you suggest in this case?

[@sunflower-mr5nj]

thanks for the review, just what I need. go for Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens

[@EdwardEast-x1j]

Looking to get a 70-200 for my R6. The RF 2.8 is way too pricey for my budget atm so I have considered one of these or the RF F4 as I like that size.

[@alosanz]

Thank you! Very useful information!

[@ab-cx6bd]

Funny i never felt any softness or af hunting whatsoever on the 70-200mm II. Every copy ive owned has been brutally tack sharp. Just my opinion.

[@fun4sure2]

me too perfect sharpness I don't know from where are this photos in video :)

[@carlodortenzi4578]

#Samguw @Samguw You said 70-200 2.8 IS II/III is the second lens you need to buy as a professional. What is the first one??

[@fullscreener]

50 mm 1.8 or 50 mm 1.4. Great value for money. 24-70 2.8 is an other all around lens.

[@ansonh7495]

Thanks for sharing, now I won't have to waste time and money on a version ii. I will just jump right ahead with the version iii and have my peace of mind for the next 10 years.

[@samguw]

No worries Anson, glad I could help!

[@bridgettcarver2379]

This is exactly what I needed to decide between the two lenses. The sharpness and detail in the iii vs the ii is a deal breaker for me. Thank you!

[@samguw]

Glad it helped!

[@undertheoakfilmsltd]

Great honest video, super helpful :)

[@samguw]

Glad it was helpful!

[@mikehinh]

Great review

[@jeanpascalremon9166]

Love this, speaking the truth. Greetings from 🇨🇦

[@samguw]

Appreciate it!

[@AmineEssani]

Thanks for sharing your though. It's helpful

[@MannyScoot]

I just purchased a version II from an older photographer who never used it..... in the box like brand new....not a single dust spot or anything..... $500.00 bucks....I couldn't turn the deal down..... It's pretty sharp on a Canon 5DSR and on a D1x MK III .......

[@syahirchannel4273]

sebab awak dari malaysia dan penerangan review awak memang mantap,, so saya subscribe!!! salam dari penang 😂

[@catmom548]

Great information! Thanks!

[@diegopendinorodriguez4829]

good review, wich is the best? image stabilizer coments. thank you.

[@ANDJVisuals]

OMG you again coming up with the videos on lenses that I’m looking for!! Great!!! Now am gonna watch the video..

[@ANDJVisuals]

Ok now I’m in the chase of the 85mm for portraits, then I will go to one of these!

[@samguw]

Good choice! All in what you shoot the most. I do a lot of events and videos so the 70-200 fits really nicely!

[@alexvideo1]

you mentioned this is the second lens you'd buy as a professional, which one would be the first? Cheers!

[@samguw]

An ultra wide angle lens for me personally!

[@rudraprasadsaha4270]

I bought the version III and the 135 mm F2. But I think I should have gone for 85 f1.2 insted. What do you think

[@samguw]

I think the 135 is better than the 85 1.2. Unless you really really need the 1.2

[@rudraprasadsaha4270]

@@samguw I am realizing that now. 135 mm f 2 is an amazing lens.especially having been using the 85 f1.8 canon the 135 mm is a huge difference

[@fun4sure2]

C70-200f2.8 IS M2 or M3 is better buy then C135f2 because you have 70mmf2.8 100mmf2.8 135mmf2.8 200mmf2.8 all mm with IS so C70-200 is more versatile or C85mm1.2 that's different level

[@Johnsmith12849]

Damn it I wish I watched this before I bought the version II

[@theloniushi]

Great reviews, really love them, hope you're not a canon ambassador, could understand it as 4 money and gear, but it would influence your independent voice, in my ears that is

[@ebbe_grant]

You mentioned the 70-200mm lens is the second lens one should buy. May I kindly know which one is first?

[@justinkobe9328]

Nifty fifty 👌

[@samuelgongoragarcia1268]

35mm

[@grace7059]

Is there a big difference from version 1? I still use the original version of 70-200 2.8 IS L.

[@samguw]

Definitely. There is going to be a huge difference in image quality compared to Vii and iii however, it is more on a technical level. If you are happy with the images coming out on the V1, you shouldn't need to upgrade. But yes, the Vii and iii are going to be much better

[@grace7059]

I'm experiencing problems with Vi though these days. A lot of images are quite blurry and I think it's front focusing. I am trying to adjust within the camera using micro adjustment. But if I am going to take it to Canon to calibrate, it costs $300ish. Debating if it's worth or just upgrade to VIII....

[@DeyvsonMoutinhoCaliman]

I don't know if I thank you or if I get angry, because I ended up buying a new Mark III instead of a used Mark II, which cost quite more, but this video was anxiety inducing of me getting a worse product and then having to upgrade.

[@samguw]

Ahahahah. Well what I'd always say that if you can afford it and not be in debt, you made the right choice. I personally believe if I was going to buy a new lens it should always be the latest. So I'd rather save up for it, than save the cash getting an older model. It's not about always having the newest equipment because you can, but it's also as a form of investment. Investing in the latest will generally yield more returns. BUT, the V3 is miles better than the V2 IMO

[@dannydao1660]

No worries, trust me. Under the golden rule, new is always better than the old. Like wife.

[@samarthmegharaj]

Great shot at @3:21

[@daliborpuchta1952]

Even Canon itself acknowledges that the optics is IDENTICAL between the II and III version. So unless your version II was misaligned or faulty, there should be no difference in sharpness between the two versions. Which is exactly what I and many others have witnessed.

[@richardblack4958]

Thank you

[@ReubenLiu13]

Is the II's lack of sharpness such a deal breaker that you wouldn't use it for work?

[@samguw]

Actually the thing is, I feel I can notice the sharpness if I compare it to the III. Throughout most of the range (70-150ish) sharpness is overall very similar. It's only around the end of the telephoto range that I notice a pretty distinct drop in sharpness. And a lot of the image I shoot with the lens tend to fall on max range or at 70-80. So personally, yes. I most likely would not use the II for work if I could choose the III. But the version II has been a staple in many pro camera bags that I wouldn't go as far as to say I will not use the II for work. It's only if I have the choice.

[@RayValdezPhotography]

the ii is kinda soft for me at times. it is only if you zoom in a lot.

[@samguw]

Glad it's not just me! At least I know it's a common issue and not just a defect model

[@RayValdezPhotography]

@@samguw i noticed it for awhile. my 24-70 is much sharper and also my 105.1.4.

[@palestineGirl100]

hey is the version 2 have more smoother images than version 3?

[@samguw]

Smoother? As in the bokeh? hmm not really

[@welcomebacktoAK]

Why is the version ii significantly more expensive than the version iii?

[@samguw]

I think it's because of technology at the time it was made. Now that it's cheaper to manufacture lenses, that's why the v3 is cheaper as when the v2 came out? not sure

[@Noealz]

i didnt even know there was a 3rd version lol

[@samguw]

Hahahha and now you do! Love this lens man. So versatile

[@alejandrocampollo]

there is a 4th

[@Lucy-dk5cz]

Alejandro Campollo are you referring to the RF lens? Not really a fourth because you can’t mount it on a EF mount

[@lilblingking1491]

@@Lucy-dk5cz The fourth would be the f/4 version of the 70-200. So there are technically more than 4 because of the f/4 is and f/4 is II

[@techgeek2994]

what you are saying is not correct lab result tests indicate version 2 is sharper than version 3 not only on 1 site but on multiple sites

[@stevied653]

Unless you’re earning 50k per year with photography then the ii is more than good enough and much sharper than most lenses

[@danigranier6714]

you sold me man

[@hdahir545]

In india ii cost 165k indian rupees and 170k for iii So just 5k difference No need to think just go for iii😂

[@jamescarlos8642]

Is there any difference between mark ii version and Mark III version in canon 70-200mm f2.8 is lens

[@samguw]

Umm not sure I follow? Did you watch the entire video? It basically highlights the differences

[@RayValdezPhotography]

the guy made a whole video about what u ask and you still asking this question.

[@viperstinger77]

I disagree with everything you say i have both lenses they both on par. I even tested a few of my friends which was taken with which lens they all got it wrong

[@HotNHorny]

If they all got it wrong, wouldn’t that mean the Mark II is better if they assume it’s the Mark III?

[@alaryani100]

Canon is lying to the consumer. Lens VR. 3 is the same as VR. 2, there are no differences except in numbers

[@melvinchiew4331]

the amount of guitars behind u doesnt correlate to ur profession in photography lol...WHY DO U HAVE SO MANY GUITARS!!??! LOL

[@m77ast]

Sorry but please just get on with it..

[@mickeymclaughlin1775]

Delete the “blah blah blah “