70-200 F2.8 which verision?

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #13422352
Unless you know that you must have the MK II, take a look at the Sigma OS.
85% of the IQ at 60% of the cost. I love mine

I also have the Sigma OS. Definitely worth to as least check out.

If you can afford it, go with the Canon 70-200mm II. Other options are quite nice, but most trade some compromise in image quality for reduced price.

if you have the money, definitely go for the mkII. if you dont like used glass, definitely go for the mkII. mkI is great already, but mkII is like gold. im satisfied with my mkI and didnt mind it being used, but i also did save about a ton of money.

IS MkII.....it's incredible!

AJG1 wrote in post #13429770
IS MkII.....it's incredible!

What he said.

Just got my hands on a 70-200 F2.8 IS MkII. Had played with an old Sigma, hired a MkI. Bought a MkII. It's a very nice bit of kit - just need to work out how to pay for it now

Here are my suggestions

1. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 (most expensive BEST opticically)
2. Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS (can be had for $1300-1500 new with 6-10 year warranty). 85-90% of image quality.
3. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 mk1 (can be had for $1300-1400 used). I would say the image quality is on par with the Sigma and about 85-90% of the mk2.

Another thing to consider is if you need weather sealing. The mk2 is the one to get if you do.

I love my 2.8 IS mk1... Got it really cheap off ebay... Is it that bad compared to the mk2??

jack880 wrote in post #13431833
I love my 2.8 IS mk1... Got it really cheap off ebay... Is it that bad compared to the mk2??

No, not at all in my opinion. But most folks that spend $2000+ for the latest and greatest will sometimes resort to a bit of hyperbole to rationalize the expense. Frankly, I just haven't seen enough of a compelling reason to "upgrade" from my Mk I...plenty sharp, even wide open.

yep, good point!

jack880 wrote in post #13431833
I love my 2.8 IS mk1... Got it really cheap off ebay... Is it that bad compared to the mk2??

I got a mk1 a good few years ago, it got a hell of a lot of use and loved it, mine was very sharp wide open, then I got a 300f2.8Lis and stopped using the 70-200 so I sold it and got the F4Lis and it was sharper than my 70-200f2.8 things changed and found myself needing 2.8 again so I got a mk2 at a good price and it blew me away but that does not make the mk1 a bad lens, I sold my mk1 long before the mk2 was out and got a good price for it, infact I lost no money on it so the upgrade never cost a lot, so go enjoy your mk1 its still a great lens.

70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is as good as it gets.

There are significant trade-offs between quite a few metrics on all four Canon 70-200mm lenses:
1. Weight - IS and f2.8 add greatly to bulk and weight of the lenses
2. Cost - not such an issue over the long term perhaps, but IS and 2.8 cost significantly more
3. Image Quality - this is very subjective but usually favors the f4 lenses
4. Usability - indoor shooting argues for IS and f2.8, particularly on crop cameras where noise is an issue preventing ISO boosting

What everyone wants is a low-cost, light-weight lens which can capture any image at the desired bokeh. Until someone comes up with a new idea for imaging, we are sometimes stuck with heaps of heavy, complicated, expensive glass to get the images we desire.

The MKII is obviously better than the MKI but is not worth the Price jump... No matter what the IS Is worth it so get at LEAST the MKI!

muskyhunter wrote in post #13430384
Here are my suggestions

1. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 (most expensive BEST opticically)
2. Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS (can be had for $1300-1500 new with 6-10 year warranty). 85-90% of image quality.
3. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 mk1 (can be had for $1300-1400 used). I would say the image quality is on par with the Sigma and about 85-90% of the mk2.

Another thing to consider is if you need weather sealing. The mk2 is the one to get if you do.

FYI

The canon 70-200 2.8 IS (first version) is weather sealed too. I had it for 4 years before I decided to upgrade to the Mark II.
In addition the Mark I is definitely better than the sigma offering and is pretty close to the Mark II.
The Mark II is very sharp at 2.8 and since I shoot at 2.8 a lot, I reluctantly decided to get the Mark II.

sloanbj wrote in post #13433678
There are significant trade-offs between quite a few metrics on all four Canon 70-200mm lenses:
1. Weight - IS and f2.8 add greatly to bulk and weight of the lenses
2. Cost - not such an issue over the long term perhaps, but IS and 2.8 cost significantly more
3. Image Quality - this is very subjective but usually favors the f4 lenses
4. Usability - indoor shooting argues for IS and f2.8, particularly on crop cameras where noise is an issue preventing ISO boosting

What everyone wants is a low-cost, light-weight lens which can capture any image at the desired bokeh. Until someone comes up with a new idea for imaging, we are sometimes stuck with heaps of heavy, complicated, expensive glass to get the images we desire.

Where did you get that image quality favors the f4?
I have the 2.8 IS mark II and hear that it is better than the f4 IS. I had the 2.8 IS and the image quality of that lens was superb too? In fact I was reluctant to part with it to upgrade to the Mark II. Did you have any of these lenses to say this?

As far as weight goes, yes - the 2.8 lenses are really heavy. I think the f4 IS is sharp and has excellent image quality minus the bulk but minus the one stop advantage.
I guess compromises have to be made one way or the other.