Want the 70-200mm II but can't justify the cost?

To be honest, unless you buy used the mark II 2.8 is not much more than the mark I nowadays. Is it worth that much more than the f/4? To me it is but I shoot at 2.8 a lot for portraits. Only you can decide if you want the extra stop.

I've had the f/4L IS for a couple of years, and I've just got a f/2.8 IS II. The f/4L IS was the sharpest lens I'd ever used (at the time) and is very close in IQ to the 2.8 II (I haven't had a chance to really put the new baby through its paces yet, though.)

If you're shooting mostly outdoors, and without a tripod, then there is actually a good chance the f/4 would fit what you need better. It is light enough to be a comfortable walkaround lens, and doesn't take big biceps to point and shoot with it. The f/2.8 is twice the weight, and much more effort to handhold for long periods. The f/4 is good for slow moving animals, and even allows fast enough shutter speeds for outdoor sports as long as the light is fairly good, but I have long wished for a bigger aperture when it gets heavily overcast, or shooting indoors (gigs etc.) which is why I finally made the switch (that and wanting to be able to knock out the background a bit more effectively for sports.)

For what you've described, I think you may be better saving your pennies and getting the f/4 IS instead of the big f/2.8 MkII.

If you want to shoot wildlife you might look at the 300/4 , is or not, non is looks to be better optically. Also 400/5.6 or 100-400. 200 is ok for wildlife, 300+ is better, although I do get some with shorter.

Get calbe release and use mirror lock up with 2 sec delay for cheap tripod when you can.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10923191
Oh, and the MFD is noticeably shorter with the MkII as well...

That's almost worth it right there. I have a really good copy of a non IS and I find my self putting a tube in my pocket when I leave the house with it. Just in case. When my wife heals up from all the $ I spent on camera crap recently, I will probably go for the MkII

Again, you're mistaken.

As was said, the f4 IS has the same IS system as the f2.8 IS II. Also, I have (very) sharp pictures taken at 200 mm at 1/10s with the f4 IS.

Secondly, I encourage you to take a look at Canon's own MTF charts for both lenses. You'll see that Canon admits they have at best only marginally increased the sharpness of the 2.8 II versus the 4 IS.

Finally, MFD of both lenses are identical.

While I agree the 2.8 II is a super upgrade on the 2.8 I, the 2.8 II honestly just buys you a stop of light versus the f4 IS. For some people that stop is absolutely necessary. I was able to buy an f4 IS for $740 on the used market, so I'll gladly take my $1500 discount over the 2.8 II.

bobfather wrote in post #10923907
Again, you're mistaken.

As was said, the f4 IS has the same IS system as the f2.8 IS II. Also, I have (very) sharp pictures taken at 200 mm at 1/10s with the f4 IS.

Secondly, I encourage you to take a look at Canon's own MTF charts for both lenses. You'll see that Canon admits they have at best only marginally increased the sharpness of the 2.8 II versus the 4 IS.

Finally, MFD of both lenses are identical.

While I agree the 2.8 II is a super upgrade on the 2.8 I, the 2.8 II honestly just buys you a stop of light versus the f4 IS. For some people that stop is absolutely necessary. I was able to buy an f4 IS for $740 on the used market, so I'll gladly take my $1500 discount over the 2.8 II.

It may also have a 4 stop rated IS system, but the one in the f/4 lens is significantly older in design and I strongly suspect not as effective. Can't say for SURE without the two to compare side by side.

Kooper wrote in post #10923115
Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking.

200mm won't cut it for anything wild...so you might as well factor in the costs of some teleconverters...or buy the right lens for the job in the first place...

When I was upgrading from my sigma, the 2.8 II was way out of my budget.

Then I got a great deal and a $500 upgrade from a mark I to a mark II, definitely worth it.

So it's worth it if you have the money and you're willing to spend it.

I bought the Mii about 3 weeks ago and now have it for sale - preferably for the f/4 IS. For wildlife, the stop buys you a couple minutes in the morning and a couple in the evening. It is also way to short for wildlife and a little on the heavy side for a walkaround.

I will give it to Canon - it is an awesome lens. AF is quick and silent and the IS is amazing. Just doesn't fit my type of photography. That and I really don't see a tremendous difference in pictures with the Mi vs. Mii.

But that's just me.

DreDaze wrote in post #10923928
200mm won't cut it for anything wild...so you might as well factor in the costs of some teleconverters...or buy the right lens for the job in the first place...

I agree !

though couldn't he cut double duty with this lens running it either with a 1.4 or a 2x convertor to get a little more versitility out of the lens though granted at a little bit of light loss?

Kooper wrote in post #10923047
Hi everyone,

I really want to pick up the 70-200mm IS II, but the cost of a little over 2K is just so much. Would it really be much of a sacrifice to go for a different lens? What would be the most comparable at that range, and would it even come close IQ wise, ect.?

What would be the best value at that 70-200 area?

Just trying to ask a bit. If the IS II really is just that good I would be willing to drop the money for it. But if it's just slightly better than something it may be very much worth the sacrifice to save money towards more lenses. Problem is I have no experience with the lens itself or other lenses in that area, so I just would like to get some opinions on what direction I should take.

Thanks everyone!

Same problem here. I got the 70-200 F4IS, and never even looked back. Someday, maybe in a year or so, I will get the 2.8 IS, mkII. But, I am totally satisfied with the f4L IS.

Get a good tripod, practice your handholding and breathing while taking the shot and you will find f4 isn't that limiting.

The only thing that you really cant overcome with f4 vs 2.8 is the shallower DOF. Flashes and ISO and planning/composition etc can overcome the speed issue quite often...but overcoming the DOF defies the laws of optical physics.

P.S. I also decided to go with a 300 f4L IS to compliment it for extra reach. I haven't shot it yet, but from everything I hear and read and see, it is optically excellent and very affordable. Same price range as the 70-200 f4L IS

The mk2 is light years ahead of the rest, it even handles TC's very well.

Is the MK II the best? Sure. Do you need it? No.

Listening to what you want to shoot and your skillset, I would recommend not getting MK II. 70-200 F/2.8 Non-IS is super sharp lens that can be picked up around $1000 used for a mint one. You will be very happy with it. Professionals shot with that for years and it was considered the best of the best at that time.

You have two 1.8 lenses, so if you need low light lenses, you got those. So while you won't be getting IS with the MK I or II version, you can work around it. Plus, you said mostly outdoor shoots, which will be plenty bright enough.

Another option is to go with f/4 IS version. It is a bit sharper than 2.8 Non-IS and lighter, and you do get IS with it.

Any of the 70-200mm are plenty sharp. Unless you are printing really big, you will never notice it.

Kooper wrote in post #10923115
Well, I like to take photos outdoors a lot, usually on trails and such, I don't have a good tripod ($20 walmart thing). Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking. I also go to the city a lot, so if I can find a reason to use it then, there as well; but the idea is outdoors.

For your style, a 70-200 Mark II would definitely fit the bill. Save your pennies and don't buy an alternative. I'll just drive you nuts with a whole bunch of "what-if" questions.