Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or I

I am in the process of buying my first L lens and I have trouble figuring out if the new model is worth the extra $700. This would be my main lens for weddings. I also shoot portraits, architecutre, sports, nature but wedding take the lead in this. Any suggestions or samples from someone that has shot with both?

Yes. It worths every penny

There's really no doubt about it regardless of who you ask.

I have the first one and i use it on a EOS 5D Mark II full frame sensor. Its the best investment i have ever had. If you can afford the extra cash then buy the II version, If you want to save some money by the I one. I would like the II one but i am totaly satisfied with the one i have. from the reviews i have read you have to have both lenses and compair shot for shot to notice any difference. Either one i think you would be satisfied.

I got a deal on a Ver.1 and its is plenty sharp for my usage. I have been carrying it around the last few days and shot from 2.8 -3.5 and am pleased. That $700 can turn into $1000 if you wait for the right deal to come along, and that can buy a whole other bit of nice glass...

Best of luck either way!

if you get the vI, you will constantly wonder how much better the vII is. i have not used the vI, but the vII is absolutely worth every penny IMO.

Check the comparison here:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=mCBEM5fPpvQ

chrisd999 wrote in post #15472984
Check the comparison here:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=mCBEM5fPpvQ

Wrong lens. That video is the 24-70 II, not the 70-200 II.

I've owned both and yes, Version II is a nice improvement but Version I stills holds its own. If your budget allows for Version II, go for it. If not, you will not be disappointed with Version I at all.

Considering the usefulness of the 70-200 range for weddings, I recommend investing in a 70-200 II. Especially if you shoot weddings professionally.

I often rent the version I for my girls nutcracker show. This year, I rented the version II, shots seems to be much better.

All 70-200/2.8L's are excellent. But, from my experience with the copy that I personally own or owned, it goes like this in term of sharpness:

70-200/2.8L IS II > 70-200/2.8L > 70-200/2.8L IS

mobrotsa wrote in post #15472150
I am in the process of buying my first L lens and I have trouble figuring out if the new model is worth the extra $700. This would be my main lens for weddings. I also shoot portraits, architecutre, sports, nature but wedding take the lead in this. Any suggestions or samples from someone that has shot with both?

With the vII, you can shoot wide open at 2.8, and anywhere between 70-200mm, and not have to worry about the lens not being sharp at any particular aperture or focal length.

kin2son wrote in post #15472161
Yes. It worths every penny

There's really no doubt about it regardless of who you ask.

Yes.

I've owned both lenses and have well over 10,000 images with each and the IS II version is markedly better and well worth the extra money. The difference at f/2.8 is quite noticeable for even routine images.

Get the mkII