DP Review's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II review is up

[usayit]

Sounds like you and cfcontusion might wish to re-read the original poster's question/commentary.

I did.. The original post didn't call into question whether or not QC issues exist in mass production. In fact, implicitly accepting that it is a phenomenon. What it did call into question was why dpreview only used one sample. There is a big difference... unless you are fishing to linky your favorite report.

Usayit's penchant for $3,495 Leica 50mm lenses might make him unaware that Canon's 50/1.4 USM has nowhere near the same optical and mechanical quality leica can lavish on its lenses, and 5 Canon 1.4 lenses in a row delivered horrible performance, all on the same side,

You should know by now that I am a Canon shooter as well.. Yes, I sold off most of my equipment picking and choosing just 3 lenses. One of which is a 50mm f/1.4 which I have not experienced any problems.

So again.. here's another question. What does my ownership of a Leica glass have anything to do with this discussion? btw.. I've never spent that much on a single Leica lens. You might have me confused with a former member... I guarantee you have more $$$ sunk into camera equipment than I. I don't horde the stuff.. I am very selective.

my comments are not those of an anti-Canon person;

They might not be intended in such a manner but your posts always seem to come off that way. It doesn't matter that you own Canon. If that were not the case, this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/186104-unofficial-derrel-intempus-thread.html

would have never resulted. Along with the numerous ping pong matches you've had with intempus.

 

[usayit]

Here's a fawning review of the new 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II lens. The reviewer bought three samples, and one of them he is absolutely enamored with. He now lists this lens as his favorite lens. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review

Yup... that's better... I knew you could find a more appropriate linky.

 

[usayit]

For me, I think the interesting differences are the improvements in how the mark II controls flare (I've noticed that problem) and IQ at wide open f/2.8. Both of which become exaggerated with the x1.4 or x2 teleconverters. We've had quite a few threads pitching the 100-400L against the 70-200L + 2x teleconverter and usually the consensus is that the 100-400L will perform better with the later a better option for those that need the flexibility. That might not be the case with this new version of the 70-200L. It just might convince me to trade in my 100-400L for that exact combination. (Assuming Canon is still sitting around not realizing that the 100-400L is in need of an update)

 

[cfusionpm]

For me, I think the interesting differences are the improvements in how the mark II controls flare (I've noticed that problem) and IQ at wide open f/2.8. Both of which become exaggerated with the x1.4 or x2 teleconverters. We've had quite a few threads pitching the 100-400L against the 70-200L + 2x teleconverter and usually the consensus is that the 100-400L will perform better with the later a better option for those that need the flexibility. That might not be the case with this new version of the 70-200L. It just might convince me to trade in my 100-400L for that exact combination. (Assuming Canon is still sitting around not realizing that the 100-400L is in need of an update)

That would be really interesting to see. I wouldn't mind running some tests like I did on the previous page, but I'd rather not spend 100$ renting all the equipment to do so. =/