70-200 2.8 IS vs. MKII?

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?

Thanks,
Jeremy

The 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS that you have is a superb lens, well regarded and extremely sharp. But to your question is the MkII f/2.8 worth the extra over the MkI? The answer is a resounding yes! Wide open its much sharper than the MkI, shows no purple fringing and has 4 stop IS to name a few advantages. When I first got my hands on mine, I was astonished at how good it is. So if cost isn't an issue I would say get the MkII, you won't regret it.

I would be interested in a real side by side comparison too.

I've currently got the f4 IS and the 2.8 IS mk1, although I should be selling my f4. I do agree that the f4 appears a little crisper but nothing that is apparent when viewing images at normal sizes. The f2.8 mk1 was the wedding photographers choice for a long time and there are many beautiful images with these.

I can't bring myself to spend the extra money on the mkii

is there any difference other than IQ? such as the AF being faster, or the IS being better?

You can see a difference in sharpness on The Digital Picture comparison

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

I own the Mark II so can't comment first hand on the Mark I, I came from the F/4 IS, but judging by that, comparison you'd need to stop the Mark I down to match the sharpness of the Mark II.

I started this thread to plan for the near future. I just got my F4, so im not able to fork out the cash for the 2.8 II right now.. I could afford the f4, so I got it to start taking nice shots. I figured if I needed the 2.8 i could sell the f4 and put that money toward the 2.8. Its nice how the L series telephotos hold their value...

After shooting high school football last night, I can see that there is room for improvement. The f4 was great until it got pretty dark. To get good light, i had to slow the shutter, which killed my action stopping ability. I suppose I could simply get a 2.8 non-IS for doing night sports and keep the f4 for everything else. But if the 2.8 IS II would fit the bill for everything, it'd be the same cost as having both the other lenses...

thanks for the link jayrou

Jeremy

I've owned 2 canon 70-200 2.8 IS and since moved to the 70-200 II. The sharpest is definitely there for the II at 2.8. I have no regrets buying the II, it's my most used lens EVER!

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15111590
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?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Of course it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been the best seller of Canon L lens line-up. The question is, is it worth $500 more FOR YOU, and more importantly, can you COMFORTABLY afford it?

Check my real world tests.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=961566

The difference between my IS I and IS II was very small. If you looking for shooting sports, why not just 70-200mm f2.8 non IS.

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15111590
....is the MK II that much better than the original 70-200L 2.8 IS?

I was looking for a NEW 70-200 f2.8L IS about a year ago and couldn't find one anywhere. Are they still available new now? If not, unless you want to by a used one, why even bother making comparisons between the original and the MkII?

bobbyz wrote in post #15114470
Check my real world tests.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=961566

The difference between my IS I and IS II was very small. If you looking for shooting sports, why not just 70-200mm f2.8 non IS.

That is a very helpful comparison. Cropped, you can see that the II does have a sharpness edge over the original.

Ill probably end up saving for the big dog. Im just that person who would look at my photos and think..."it could be a little sharper here, or there", and it would bug me to think that it would be better if Id got the other lens.

Mentioned above, I have thought about having a 2.8 non IS also, but with the cost of the F4 ive got, and the cost of the 2.8 non-is, Id be at the same cost of having one MKII. So if the MKII is as sharp as the f4, why not just have one lens for everything...AND have the sharpest low light photos. The only downside would be losing the joy of the light weight of the f4 on long days...

Thanks,
Jeremy

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15114349
Of course it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been the best seller of Canon L lens line-up.

Do you have a link for these stats? I can't believe that to be true. I'd think the 24-105 or the 17-40 or even the 24-70 would be top in that list.

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15114651
Ill probably end up saving for the big dog. Im just that person who would look at my photos and think..."it could be a little sharper here, or there", and it would bug me to think that it would be better if Id got the other lens.

I feel that the mark II f/2.8 is closer in image quality to the f/4 IS than it is to the mark I f/2.8. If you're happy with the images coming out of your f/4 and want the same thing from a 2.8 lens, I'd say go for the mark II.

unistudent1962 wrote in post #15114503
I was looking for a NEW 70-200 f2.8L IS about a year ago and couldn't find one anywhere. Are they still available new now? If not, unless you want to by a used one, why even bother making comparisons between the original and the MkII?

Yep, Im buying used. I dont see a reason to pay around 500 more when I can get one like brand new from someone who realized they dont need that particular lens. My f4 was off ebay and I paid 860. Its like new, in perfect shape. It just didnt have the hood. So I got a vello from BH for 11 bucks.

I was recently seeing the MKII used or refurbed for $1999.00, although I was just on Canonpricewatch and there are none available right now. -rick

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15114677
Yep, Im buying used. I dont see a reason to pay around 500 more when I can get one like brand new from someone who realized they dont need that particular lens. My f4 was off ebay and I paid 860. Its like new, in perfect shape. It just didnt have the hood. So I got a vello from BH for 11 bucks.

from looking around a lot before purchasing my f4, the typical prices for a nice used lens is about 500 for the f4 non is, 800-1000 for the f4 IS, 90-1000 for the 2.8 non IS, 1300-1500 for the 2.8 IS, and 1900-2200 for the 2.8 IS II.

So roughly 500 bucks or so less than brand new...