Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS V1 or V2

I have read one or two comparisons on it but i figured there was a ton of wisdom to be picked up from here. (I searched a little but didn't find much discussion here on it)

I have a friend willing to sell me a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS V1 for short money. (>$1500) I am checking it out tomorrow but it was described as in great condition (he gave it an 8 out of 10)

But I had my heart set on waiting a little bit for a V2 copy when the funds would allow.

Considering the V2 is going for $2,000+ still and this one would be saving me several hundred dollars. Do you guys feel the 2nd revision is worth the extra coin? Would it even be that noticeable in everyday shooting?

Body is a 5dII

depends on how you look at the "several hundred dollars"

if it were me, i'd pay the extra several hundred dollars so i don't have to ask myself ... "What if ..."

If you can spare the funds for the mkII, by all means get it.

Kit Cloudkicker wrote in post #12816641
I have read one or two comparisons on it but i figured there was a ton of wisdom to be picked up from here. (I searched a little but didn't find much discussion here on it)

I have a friend willing to sell me a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS V1 for short money. (>$1500) I am checking it out tomorrow but it was described as in great condition (he gave it an 8 out of 10)

But I had my heart set on waiting a little bit for a V2 copy when the funds would allow.

Considering the V2 is going for $2,000+ still and this one would be saving me several hundred dollars. Do you guys feel the 2nd revision is worth the extra coin? Would it even be that noticeable in everyday shooting?

Body is a 5dII

Up to you. I can say that I found the 2.8 IS to be not quite as good as the 2.8 non-IS which itself I found to be not quite as good as the f/4 IS which people claim is not quite as good as the 2.8 IS II

But even the 2.8 IS is a solid enough lens, not like it's bad image quality by any means, but the new one is pretty certainly better unless you got a dropped copy.

I would spend the extra cash for the Mark II. If you don't get it, you'll just be kicking yourself later wishing you would have.

The original is a great lens but the mark II is just that much better.

I'd pay a liitle extra for version two. If that's not an option, I think I'd consider the f4 IS version if f4 is acceptable.

well i'd like to stay with the 2.8 IS version so its between either the I or the II.

the difference is looking to be around $800 right now. Money is a little tight since I'm in between trying to find a new apartment and stuff that goes along with that, I probably shouldn't even be spending the money for the V1... I dont know i just don't really have anything in my kit that has any range. My current set up is limited to a 16-35 f2.8 II and a 50 f1.4. The 70-300 i have is pretty much junk so i am kind of looking for something with some reach.

So what is the IS version actually doing besides providing you with extra stops in low light

Although I just bought a new tripod and am trying to force myself to rely on that more, at the moment i shoot a lot of hand held and wouldnt mind the reassurance of the IS

If you know you will still be wishing for the Mk II if you buy the Mk I then keep saving. There really is nothing wrong with the Mk I, provided the one you are buying is in good condition, and has been raved about for years. The intro of the Mk II doesn't diminish all those qualities! There are improvements in the Mk II but if it's worth it or not depends on your buying motives. If you are going for the "best" then get the Mk II but if you still want a good lens for the money then the Mk I is fine. You could also look at the new 70-300L which is going for around the price of the used Mk I you are looking at. Of course it's not f/2.8 but if that's not a major sticking point then it's a pretty good lens.

well i bit the bullet and picked up the MK I... it was just too good to pass up. Lens is in great condition, it will only appreciate in value from what i bought it for when its time to go with the MK II. I'm excited to get out and shoot with it some time tomorrow. should be great with the manfrotto 055prob tripod and pistol grip i just aquired.

I agree with your decision. having used both the MKII is better, but the MKI is still great and a really good value now. If money was no object the MKII is a no brainer, but overall the MKI esp at/around $1500 is a true value proposition.

If you shoot primarily at f/2.8 like I do, there's no comparison. The MkII is much better than the MkI.