Sports photography pixel peeper - which 70-200 2.8 for me?

I do mostly sports photography and am battling amongst the 70-200 2.8's. I haven't been that impressed with the Canon 2.8 non-is image quality, but I'm wondering if it's even worth the upgrade to the mk1 IS version when the mk2 is selling for only several hundred more at times. And I really don't even need the IS for what I do, I would simply be buying it for the IQ upgrade. Then there's the Sigma OS HSM version but I really haven't found enough sample pictures to see if it would meet my expectations.

I'd appreciate anyone's insight. $2k is a good chunk of money to spend on the mk2 but I'd make the purchase if it's the only lens that's going to satisfy my pickiness about IQ.

If you could post or link to Full Resolution samples of your Mk1 non-IS and Mk1 IS shots, I would really appreciate it.

If you are going to upgrade, I would go for the MK II and be done with it. You will have no regrets.

Well, I might have one... that I could have purchased a 135 f/2 for the price difference.

The Mk II IS version is spectacularly sharp, and going from non-IS to IS, even in sports, is helpful. In my opinion, the Mk I IS version wouldn't really be an upgrade at all, but the MK II is certainly worth its premium.

In the 70-200mm focal range in the EOS system, the Mk II IS is probably the only lens that will satisfy your "pickiness about IQ."

I should also say, feel free to tell me I'm an idiot for being so picky and that the 2.8 mk1 non-IS producing stunning enough images. It could very well be my standards/requirements aren't realistic.

IMHO there is a significant IQ difference bwt the Mk I and the Mk II. I have used both extensively and the Mk II is a consistantly better performer.

I have the MkI non-IS, sure the MKII IS is awesome, but the MKI is no slouch

I know the Mk II is the undoubted winner in terms of IQ. I'm just trying to figure out if it's worth the pric difference between the Mk1 non-IS as I could buy another stellar lens if it's not.

Changed original post to reflect request for people to post samples of their Mk1 non-IS and Mk1 IS captures.

Worth the price difference ? Then you really aren't a pixel peeper. Never had the Mk1 but the MKII is worth the asking price, imo

I understand where you're coming from. If I can ask if it's worth the difference, then maybe it isn't, right? What I'm really asking here is if others think it's worth the price difference. I would certainly say so, but I want others input to possibly save me some money or help me sleep a bit better at night if I do purchase it.

If you're an admitted pixel peeper then the IS II is going to be worth the money. If you buy the Mk I then you will always know there is something out there better and will think of that every time you have an issue with the Mk I. It's a huge chunk of money but I have never regretted buying mine. I never had the Mk I so I can't offer any comparison shots but I have been blown away with the Mk II and I use it mainly for sports.

They are all very good. A correctly made and post processed shot from any of them should satisfy even a very picky customer. However, if you really want to know whether you are picky....and whether you can generate stunning images, buy, borrow or rent a 200 f/2, and see what you come back with.
Shoot with that lens, then come back and give us an honest evaluation of how it all went.

Edit: just to make it clear on this subject, I have and use the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and the 200 f/2. I like them both, and plan on keeping and using both for a long time.

Love my MK II IS

I've had a go with a 300 2.8 for a day and come out with some great images (on a camera with failing AF that was missing focus 7 out of 10 shots) so I think I'm good on that front.

Yep, if you're sports shooter, the 300 is your friend. Shooting a golf tournament the other day, I had the 200 2.0 on one body, the 300 2.8 on a second body, and honestly, I used the 300 quite a bit more than the 200. I had a fun angle to the guys teeing off this one particular tee box though, and the 200 was the perfect length for it, considering I was up in the weeds and rocks above them ! Couldn't back up any further.
You should try the 300 for a day on a properly functioning camera. Sweet lens. I can't imagine shooting sports without it.