Debating on 70-200 IS USM f/2.8L Mark I or II

Like the title says.. I'm in a debate over waiting and spending the cash on a 70-200 IS USM f/2.8L mark I or II

While yes it's supposed to be a much better model but is it really all that much better than the mark I? Also there is the issue of the massive price difference between the 2 models.

Mark I = 1900 new
Mark II = 2300 new

400 is a lot of money and I'm curious as to whether or not the updates are really worth the 400 dollar price difference on the lens. What do you guys think? Has anyone on here had both and/or used both?

It's going to be a little while before I buy it though, I will need to sell my 91 MR2 first and I'll probably use the money from that to fund the new lens purchase. This way it's not money that I would of been missing as it is and I'll be saving money not paying for insurance on one less vehicle....

MkI if tight budget, mkII if not, as always

Jericobot wrote in post #10671489
MkI if tight budget, mkII if not, as always

yeah i get that but is the difference in model really worth the difference in price or is the difference in model only marginally better compared?

True, $400 is allot of money, but since you're already spending at least $1900, an extra $400 isn't much when you think of it. Plus that extra $400 gives you better quality lens.

ecub wrote in post #10671543
True, $400 is allot of money, but since you're already spending at least $1900, an extra $400 isn't much when you think of it. Plus that extra $400 gives you better quality lens.

I agree with ecub on this one. The Mk I is a very capable lens, but if you're buying new, the Mk II seems like a better investment to me.

I have the Mk1 for little under two years now and was dissappointed when the MkII was announced but I won't be upgrading as I am very happy with the lens and I can't justify loosing/spending money for an extra fstop of IS. Whatever choice you make you can't go wrong. Pro's have been using this lens forever and the new lens won't make the old model any worse than it was/is. Same as when the 24-70 f2.8 L IS is going to appear. My 24-70 won't be upgraded because it's just as fantastic. I'd rather add a nice prime lens to my gearlist.

For new I think the mk2 will be a better buy. Used, I would go for mk1 if you're tight on budget.

Check that the Mk1 is actually in stock at that price - most retailers havn't actually got any stock of this lens anymore (its out of production). They put a high price on it though because it gets the searchers in from google and then they can suggest the Mk2 which is in stock and which is only a few 100 more for a fully upgraded lens.

The Mk1 market is now the second hand market where it retails for around its original as new price (ie before the Mk2 appeared).

And as said above I agree that the original lens was indeed a fantastic performer and able to deliver pro quality results through its entire focal range. Complaints of softness and of it not being "as sharp" as the f4 were often valid, but were pixel peeping and splitting at hairs rather than describing massive quality problems.
The Mk2 is the better lens there is no doubt about that but its high price means that it might not be for every ones budget. The only time I would really push someone to the Mk2 lens is if they want to use it with a 2*TC (about the only thing that the original did poorly) and even then there are cheaper alternatives that one can consider.

BoneJj wrote in post #10671527
yeah i get that but is the difference in model really worth the difference in price or is the difference in model only marginally better compared?

Faster/quiter AF and IS. Better sharpness wide open and far better contrast. If one is buying new the decision is easy. the MKII is the lens to get. For me the decision was easy. I am super anal about my images and IQ so it is easy to justify the extra $400 knowing that I will not have to spend that extra amount of time throughout the lenses life fixing this little issues.

And then there is the second guessing... should I have bought the MKII.

I just picked up my Mark I a few months ago used off of FM. I am very happy with it so far but if I had been buying brand new I definitely would have splurged for the Mark II. I paid $1500 for my lens so I feel I got a good deal vs. paying $2300 for a new Mark II.

If you intend to use it for video at any time then go for the MkI (parfocal) otherwise I'd stump up the extra for the MkII (not parfocal).

Bob

I got my like new 70-200 2.8 IS for $1400. I love it.

But if I had the money at the time to buy a mark II new I would have.

Simple. If you can afford it, Mark II. If not, Mark I.

Canon Bob wrote in post #10673048
If you intend to use it for video at any time then go for the MkI (parfocal) otherwise I'd stump up the extra for the MkII (not parfocal).

Bob

That's pretty cool, I didn't know about that fact. That could be useful for both video and general shooting as well for the way I find myself shooting a lot.

I do tend to do video from time to time of friends and family gatherings and all. I wouldn't mind doing some more video but right now my kit lens just doesn't do all that well for that.... The 70-300 is usm that I have is pretty good for video but I really need to move to the f/2.8 and I need the IS for the motion shots that I do at the race track and so on.

I get some really nice shots with it as it is now but I could really use the 2.8 to set the subjects apart more from the rest.

I'm kind of leaning to the mark I at this point. It would be nice to save a few bucks and then buy some other gear like more strobes and such.