Okay, Ive read a ton on all the 70-200s, and all the threads get pretty convoluted. Im simply wanting to know if the MKII is 500 bucks better than the original.
Ive recently got the f4, and I like it a lot!, but for shooting night time football games, Im thinking I may need to step up to the 2.8. But, Im not willing to sacrifice sharpness.
Yeah, the 2.8 will be twice (or more) as heavy, but I just dont see that really bothering me. The F4 seems pretty light to me for what it delivers. So I dont see using a heavier rig being much of an issue to me.
So, again....is the MK II that much better than the original 70-200L 2.8 IS?