200 2.8 I vs 200 2.8 II: is newer worth another $150?

I'm looking to get a lens I can use for sports on the cheap. The 100/2 has served me well, but I really need the extra 100mm of reach (more, really with my crop body) for hs football, baseball season, LAX, soccer, etc . . .

The Canon 70-200 2.8 would be great, but It is more than I want to spend right now.

The 200 2.8 primes look like great values, and I have a chance to buy a clean copy of the first edition for under $500. I've seen the second edition in the low/mid $600 range used. Optically, AF or otherwise is the II worth the extra money?

As far as I know, the only difference between the original and II is the hood. The original has a built in hood that slides forward. The II has a regular bayonet mount hood. The 200/2.8 L is a superb lens in either flavour.

The 200mm 2.8 is the best value you can get with an L lens. The IQ is the same for either lens. It's a great way to get the optical excellence of the 70-200mm L II in a lighter, easier to hold version. True, it doesn't have IS, but it's quite hand holdable. I think you'll love whichever version you get!

Another question: for $700 or less, is the 80-200. 2.8 a better buy? Comparable IQ?

mickeyb105 wrote in post #15018283
Another question: for $700 or less, is the 80-200. 2.8 a better buy? Comparable IQ?

I haven't ever used one, so hopefully someone who has will chime in, but keep in mind the 80-200 does NOT have USM, which I think is important for sports. Both of the 200 2.8 primes do.

Great point, Bill. Thank you!