IS the 70-200 2.8L IS II really THAT much better than the mk I?

So I rented a Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II this past weekend; love the lens there's no doubt about it. Heavy, but awesome! Is the mkII really THAT much better than the mkI? I read almost everywhere that IQ from the mkII is a huge improvement over the mkI, hear it from the guys at the camera shop too. I look through each lenses thread and to be honest....I'm on the fence.

Is the mkII really worth [pretty close to] double the price for someone who doesn't make a full-time living as a photographer? I'd love the best gear possible for "the job", but man that's a huge price tag!

Depends on copy to copy variation and whether you choose to pixel-peep or not.
The Mk1 has served me fine thus far and dont really see a point in upgrading at this point.

Look on B&H how many reviews have been written on this lens compared to many other lenses. That's a lot of reviews on a lens that is only 4 years on the market so many many people think its worth it.

However, what do you need it for? If you are shooting with lights in a studio at 5.6 or smaller, then there isn't much reason to carry the extra weight and spend the money on it when the f4 version is fully capable. Likewise the 135/2 gives an extra stop so it might work for you too.

rivas8409 wrote in post #16699318
Is the mkII really worth [pretty close to] double the price for someone who doesn't make a full-time living as a photographer? I'd love the best gear possible for "the job", but man that's a huge price tag!

My mkii is my "MWAC" lens. I don't presently make a dime off of it. I never would have purchased it if I wasn't for the things my little guy is involved in. I rented it first, and I knew that I wouldn't be satisfied with anything else after having used it. It isn't much good as a landscape lens, though.

Its good enough that several dedicated prime shooters traded their 135L after they picked it up. The old 2.8 IS was pretty soft wide open, but not a bad lens but the new one is that much better. (full dislosure though, the 135l users came back to the fold eventually).

In regards to the MKII.
Better AF!
Better IS!
Usually noticeably better sharpness (there are excellent MKI copies - which is why I said usually).
Will be reparable by Canon for a longer time.

You have to decide if those are enough to justify the price.

I have yet to upgrade though, because mine is sharp enough (so far) for me. But mostly money (lack there of) is stopping me.

Without TC's, it's better but not by a LOT. With TC's...especially the 2xTCIII, the MKII is better by a wide margin IMO.

Just picked up a copy of the V2 over the weekend. I can say that the IS is better than the V1 and the AF is faster as well. A good copy of the V1 can be had for around $1250-$1350 while the V2 can be had between $1800-$1950 easily. To me it was worth the extra cost, since Canon will likely stop servicing the V1 in a handful of years and they will also probably come out with a camera to rival the high MP of Sony and Nikon.

When i put my 1.4 converter on to test, the AF had no issues and snapped right on.

FEChariot wrote in post #16699391
However, what do you need it for? If you are shooting with lights in a studio at 5.6 or smaller, then there isn't much reason to carry the extra weight and spend the money on it when the f4 version is fully capable. Likewise the 135/2 gives an extra stop so it might work for you too.

If I knew it was going to stay in a studio with lights there'd be no reason to not get the f/4 non IS in my opinion. I don't forsee myself shooting indoor sports much, but having the 2.8 is nice to have when I need it. I used the 2.8 II at an indoor cheer competition this past weekend. I didn't need the IS during the competition since I kept the shutter speed at 1/400 and shot wide open, but I did use it before the teams went on to the floor during warm ups "backstage" to get some quick portraits of them. Did I need to take those portraits at 200mm and 1/125? No. But I did...because I could.

I won't lie, do I need the 2.8 for the bulk of what I shoot? No, but I want the 2.8 over the 4. It's just a matter of which 2.8.

Here's a sample shot from the day using the rented 2.8 II. I'd have never been able to get this shot (or any of them during the course of the day) with the f/4.

I have never had the Mk1 but they must have redesigned for a reason.. Canon making tons of money having nothing to do with it.. LOL

The MK2 is just sex on the end of your camera !! you could be drunk or on drugs and you would still take amazing photos...............

rivas8409 wrote in post #16699723
I won't lie, do I need the 2.8 for the bulk of what I shoot? No, but I want the 2.8 over the 4. It's just a matter of which 2.8.

Here's a sample shot from the day using the rented 2.8 II. I'd have never been able to get this shot (or any of them during the course of the day) with the f/4.

Nice shot. Another thing to consider is if you always keep the shutter high, the non IS version is sharper wide open than the mk1, but if you are shooting indoor cheer leading or any indoor sports, I would just bite the bullet and get the Mk 2.

I like having the 85/1.8 and 135/2 for when my 70-200/4 IS isn't enough, but I can totally see myself getting the mk2 and selling the f4 and keeping the primes.

General consensus is pretty much "worth every penny" throughout the spectrum, so yes.

I've had both. The Mark I was a very nice lens and I had no problem with it. The Mark II is astonishing and, to me, it was well worth the upgrade price.

My Mk.I was sold last month and trade with 6D. It is a great lens but it is noticably softer at wide open compared to 4L IS at wide open. I think I'm going to save a little more and trade my 4L IS with the Mk. II.

If price is a concern look at the tamron 2.8 VC. Its damn near the mk2 lens for much lower. I bought and sold the mk2 while having my tamron and kept my tamron its that good