About to buy a new lens: 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mk1 or mk 2?

Hello All,

I've done a lot of research regarding these lenses and know that I want one or the other and I have the money for either at this point. The problem is that I am on a majorly limited budget right now and spending the money on the mk. 2 just seems a little extravigant. Let me set this up however. I raised the money to buy this new lens through my photography and will not be spending money on a lens that should be spent on something more grounded like rent/groceries etc. This money was set aside to be spent on gear and my wife is in full support (which is nice). That being said, the mk 1 is so much more affordable than the mk 2 and I know that if I bought the mk 1 I would have extra money for other things.

I am a music photographer first and I do a lot of nature photography when I'm not shooting live music. I have used a mk 1 and found it to be sufficient for what I normally do but would I be amazed by the upgrade of the mk 2?

Any thoughts on this? Should I save the money or should I splurge?

Thanks,
andrew

what about buy a used mk2 ?

I can imagine the MkII is great for concert stuff, though I don't shoot that.

For portrait work, hands down the MkII.

Can you wait another few months to save up for it? I just upgraded and I could absolutely tell the difference from the Mk I. However, if I didn't have anything to compare against, I am positive I would be happy and quite satisfied getting the Mk I.

I'd choose the Mkii

One major reason for choosing the Mkii is the excellent quality that can be obtained when using this lens with the 2x iii TC. You could have a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens for less than $500 additional.

While you would not want to use the TC for your music photography, it would be a nice wildlife and general purpose telephoto zoom.

i've used the original 70-200 IS lens for about 5 years now, and it's a tank...taken tons of use and abuse and still works fine. i did send it back to Canon late last year to tighten up the collar near the front element, but that's been it (oh, those little screws had a tendency to loosen/fall out too...keep an eye on them).

95% of my shooting is live music, and this lens gets most of the use in larger venues. it can also take a 1.4TC just fine if i am stuck out at the soundboard. i was toying w/ the idea of selling it for a mkII copy, but think i'll use the $ for the 5D3 instead.

I have never used the mark I but I own the mark for 3 months now. I have to say that the mark ii is the only zoom lens made by canon that is as sharp as prime from 2.8 and on from 70 to 200. There is no other lens has done it, not yet. May be the 24-70 mak ii but it has not been proven yet. So I say go for the mark ii and be done with it.

Chances are, if you buy a Mk I it's probably sold by someone who is upgrading to the Mk II. Why not save yourself the added step and go straight to the Mk II?

I have used a Mk I for a long time. The Mk II is *so* much better. It's definitely worth buying a Mk II over a Mk I.

You'll know it while you shoot; even before you look at the results back home.

andrewq wrote in post #14037366
Hello All,

I've done a lot of research regarding these lenses and know that I want one or the other and I have the money for either at this point.

.....and you STILL need to ask this question?

thanks for all your replies. I feel like I'm going through mild buyers remorse and haven't even spent the money yet.

Baseed on everything I have read and images I have seen I would not purchase the MK1. I'd always know that there is one with better IQ out there.

andrewq wrote in post #14040094
thanks for all your replies. I feel like I'm going through mild buyers remorse and haven't even spent the money yet.

LOL. Imagine how I felt when I bought my 35L, 85L, and 70-200/2.8L IS II in the same week! But, whenever I had doubts, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II and all is right with the world.

Get the Mark II.

Lens will last long for years; so get the best you can afford. I close one eye sometimes for buying things that I really want.

Consider this. Let's say Mark II is $1k more and you will use the lens for the next 5 years. $1k devided by 5 years. Meaning each year, you spend only $200 more; or each month only $16.67. That's the same expense as you pay fast food twice! Moreover, considering time value of money, in the next 3-5 years, perhaps $16 is lower than the value of $16 currently.

Why bother getting a Mark I if you can afford Mark II :P and sacrifice $16 per month.

I've been in similar situations with all sorts of gear enough times to know that I would only either regret not getting the MK II or I'd get it in the end anyway......now I just save myself the trouble (and the inevitable buyer's remorse) and get better (read expensive) choice first time. I have never regretted this approach.

BTW I have a MK II....you have my personal guarantee that you will love it.