EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L MARK II?

rmdavis wrote in post #10809806
quick thread hijack, just curious how crucial is the IS on this lens? Is it worth the nearly $1000 price increase over the non-IS?

Depends on what you shoot. If it's always action, then you may not need the IS since you'll always have your shutter speed up there. I use my lens for portraits, as well as other things, and for me, I appreciate having the IS.

To the originial question, I paid full retail when it came out as well and I think that it was worth every single penny.

Whilst it is clearly a better lens than the Mk1, the difference in price at the moment is still too great to persuade me to upgrade, so I would have to say no, it's not worth it.

Yes, expensive but worth it. My 70-200 was not very sharp wide open.
The new one is way better, I can use it for indoor sports as opposed to the old one which I left at home.

Depending on use. It's either this or the 85L II. I find 2.8 to be too slow for the things that I shoot (dark venues).

ben_r_ wrote in post #10809634
I think so. Intending to sell A FEW lenses to get it.

Do it Ben. I love this lens!

Shadowblade wrote in post #10809740
It's worth every cent - like a bag full of primes, which you don't have to switch!

Exactly!

im going to sell off a Few lenses too to get this

rmdavis wrote in post #10809806
quick thread hijack, just curious how crucial is the IS on this lens? Is it worth the nearly $1000 price increase over the non-IS?

if you ever plan to shoot in low light or if you plan to shoot stopped down without a tripod it can be.

just being it has 2.8 aperture doesn't mean you are always going to be at 2.8

I asked myself the same question. I just got this lens and I'm not disappointed. Very sharp wide open. I was a little concerned about the weight, but it's honestly not bothering me. It seems to balance really nicely. I didn't believe people when they said it was like having a bag full of primes. But now I'm going to have to agree. So yes, worth every penny.

100% worth the price tag.

Shadowblade wrote in post #10809740
It's worth every cent - like a bag full of primes, which you don't have to switch!

I totally agree.

I like this lens so much I want to give it a 5DmkII body to live on forever but one day it will have to share with a 85LmkII.

pratman64 wrote in post #10808827
See for yourself.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=838247

I paid the full retail (US$2,499) when it first came out, and I have no regrets.

same here, paid full retail price $2499 and have no regret whatsoever, worth every single penny and would do it again without hesitation.

Marloon wrote in post #10809919
Depending on use. It's either this or the 85L II. I find 2.8 to be too slow for the things that I shoot (dark venues).

the 85L and 70-200 2.8 IS compliment each other very well, not meant as replacement, sometime i even wish my 85L would go down to f/1.0 or f/0.8 when i was already pushing 3200~6400 ISO and still not getting enough shutter speed to stop motion.

Its well worth the price in my opinion, and there seems to be a lot of people unloading mk1's and going mk2.

i never owned any of the other versions, but i do like this MK II version. anybody know when the new "white" color will hit the market? i personally disliked canon's move on the color change, making us early 70-200 MK II owners feel obsolete when the new color is out.