Which 70-200 2.8? Feedback from those who have shot both

So, I have a 70-200 2.8L non IS and picked up a 70-200 2.8L is version II. Now I haven't used the mkii because I recently picked it up and at this point I have not used the mkii because I'm unsure if I need the is or can get away with the non is, if so I want to be able to sell it as new (it's outside of the return policy).

What I shoot:

Fashion and portraits in natural light
Studio with off camera flash (but inside I'd use another lens maybe so it's not so tight)
Occasional sports indoor basketball only

So from my uses I don't think that I'm really needing the is and do I need to spend the extra $ on the is mark II?

Is the IQ that much better that I should keep the is? The faster focus speed and closer focus distance are nice but it's about 1k of difference in $ to me.

What do you guys think? I'm open to suggestions I just don't want to make the wrong choice and regret selling the mkii.

My non is is like new and the mkii is brand new in box so I'm not trying to take it out and use it and diminish the resale value. Thanks in advance as I am new on here.

The reason too I'm thinking I could get a 135L and keep the non is if I sell the MKII but I don't want to make the wrong decision.

Any advice from people who have shot both? The non-is is super sharp and sharper than my primes till you stop them down till about F4, I know the mkii is even sharper but I'm not dissatisfied.

I guess based on what I shoot, do you guys think I should bite the bullet and keep the mkii or am I better suited with the non-is.

I have my non-is listed here and for some reason it doesn't seem like they get as much attention as the IS verisons. I'm sure if I listed the MKII it would get a ton of interest so that's factoring in too, although I'm not necessarily in a rush either.

Btw I have a 6D and the following lenses
24-105
85mm 1.8

The IS version is newer and much sharper, plus the IS allows you to handhold at speeds that are unthinkable with the non-IS. Keep in mind that that there is more to the lens designs than simply adding IS on to the old lens. Each successive variation of that lens is a new and improved optical design.

I haven't used the non is version so won't comment on the pro's and cons... You do sound like you've already answered your own question though. You're happy with the non is version, and see no need to upgrade. Factor in that 135L, and bingo! That's a lens I have used for a couple of hours, and it instantly became my dream lens.

Wow...I don't know where to begin. I don't want to come accross as an IS fanboy but the f/2.8 IS II is just in another league compared to the non IS which I have owned for eight years. I've had the IS II version only for a few weeks but even in that short time I'm convinced the extra cost was completely worth it. I can hand hold at speeds I wouldn't have thought possible and results with my 1.4x teleconverter are also extremely good. You really won't know if it is worth it to you until you do your own comparison but I'd be shocked if you didn't think the IS version was the better choice.

Keep the new one. I've owned all three of the canons (f/2.8Ls) If all you shoot is sports than the non IS will do.

Tapeman wrote in post #17049731
Keep the new one. I've owned all three of the canons (f/2.8Ls) If all you shoot is sports than the non IS will do.

Agree. Had all f2.8 versions. f2.8 IS II is the best. For sports only non iS will do.

bobbyz wrote in post #17050533
Agree. Had all f2.8 versions. f2.8 IS II is the best. For sports only non iS will do.

Can I ask why that is!?!

beano wrote in post #17050575
Can I ask why that is!?!

you'll be shooting high shutter speeds. I'de add strobed portraits, the non IS will be fine as well.... but then again, so would the F4 non is.

the IS mk 2 is probably the most flexible lens to exist. great focal length, speed, and optics.

beano wrote in post #17050575
Can I ask why that is!?!

I'll assume it's because most sports shooting involves things that are in motion (athletes, cars, race horses, etc). IS doesn't stop motion but it will be trying to present an image stabilized image while the photographer is frantically panning the camera to shoot a moving object. I'm also guessing it's not good for the lenses IS system over time. I shut mine off when using a tripod or shooting moving objects.

bobbyz wrote in post #17050533
Agree. Had all f2.8 versions. f2.8 IS II is the best. For sports only non iS will do.

beano wrote in post #17050575
Can I ask why that is!?!

I think you may have read bobbyz's comment the way I did at first.

"For sports, only non-IS will do" (meaning nothing else will do as well as the non IS for sports).

I believe he meant, "For sports only, non IS will do" (meaning that if you only shoot sports, the non IS version is sufficient).

I have used all variants of the 70-200 at some point, and I really like the 2.8 MKII I have now. While I do shoot sports with it, I also use it for events and other situations where the IS comes in very handy. Even with sport shooting, I typically leave IS enabled, as I like the steady viewfinder it provides.

Sorry I meant for sports only, non IS is fine. Comma at wrong place.

from my experience, the only advantages the non-IS version has over the big boy is cost and weight. the IS adds 10 ounces to the weight of the lens which can make a huge difference if you have a smaller stature or are using the lens all day.

Blubayou wrote in post #17050762
I think you may have read bobbyz's comment the way I did at first.

"For sports, only non-IS will do" (meaning nothing else will do as well as the non IS for sports).

I believe he meant, "For sports only, non IS will do" (meaning that if you only shoot sports, the non IS version is sufficient).

I have used all variants of the 70-200 at some point, and I really like the 2.8 MKII I have now. While I do shoot sports with it, I also use it for events and other situations where the IS comes in very handy. Even with sport shooting, I typically leave IS enabled, as I like the steady viewfinder it provides.

bobbyz wrote in post #17050764
Sorry I meant for sports only, non IS is fine. Comma at wrong place.

Yep. That was exactly how I read it lol! Thanks for clarifying

I own the Non - IS and have shot with a friends MK2 IS. I was pretty impressed with it. If I was going today I would get the MK2IS. I think it's that much better. But since I already have the non- is. I won't sell it to get the MK2. Mostly since I hate selling things online.

Heya,

I think if you shoot with both, you will probably not notice a "huge" difference. You may notice a bit of a difference. But I wouldn't think it would be so major that you would want to start burning hundred dollar bills in homage to just how "so much better" the MKII version is.

If you don't know if you need the IS for what you shoot, then you likely don't need it.

Keep what you have. Sell the one you're not using. Invest in something else that you don't already have and get back to shooting. 85LII? Lighting? A second body? That's how much money you have sitting there in a lens that you already have basically. I'd be looking to replace the 85 F1.8 and 24-105F4L with something more useful. 24-74 F2.8 VC from Tamron? Again, 85LII or Sigma 85 F1.4? Something you don't already have that you can benefit from, rather than just adding a wee bit of optical superiority and some IS to a lens you already have. Just a thought.

Very best,