Canon 70-200 IS ver i Vs Canon 70-200 IS ver ii

I know i know.. this is probably done, I have looked around and seen a few posts on and off POTN. Doesn't... REALLY answer my question though.

I get it ... the ver ii is the best lens since sliced bread and a must have for pros and pro/ams alike. I get it. I really do.

But.... If I am on a budget... should the ver i be enough?

The differences as i see it are...

1) Ver ii has a better IS as its the new generation
2) Ver ii has a punchier, contrastier image and the Ver i is just.. kind of soft in general all around

That to me is fine but I am just starting off shooting events and KNOW i need a 70-200, I was thinking the Ver i, and i can upgrade later but.. i just hate being stupid and short sighted.

Thoughts?

Yeah, once they introduced the 2nd version, the 1st version didn't suddenly stop working Do you need IS and 2.8? If so, then version 1 is an option. For sharpness, the non-IS 70-200mm 2.8 is better. I used to have it, and did find I got pretty usable shots with indoor lighting. I also got pretty good at stabilization techniques (IE using monopods/leaning on stable items).

I have a v1, and bought it since it was about half the cost of a v2 at the time. The Digital Picture's website will let you compare them with a sample image, if you're curious - that's what I did.

Yes, the v2 has slightly higher contrast (esp. in the corners) and better IS. Will you notice it? Depends on what your output format is; 16x20 prints? billboards? Note that there is enough sample-to-sample variation that it's entirely possible you might get a v1 with IQ as good as a v2 - or, you might find a couple of samples where the v2 is notably better. My v1 looks sharper than the sample on TDP.

The v1 I bought is entirely satisfactory on my 5D3 and 7D2; I quit worrying about pixel-peeping and just concentrate on getting the lens pointed at the right subject and focused. Seriously, though, if you use either lens at 200mm / large aperture at all, take some time and check to be sure its microfocus adjust (MFA) is set properly in your camera; in some cases, mis-focus will ruin any advantage which might be gained by an intrinsically sharper lens. My 70-200 f/4 was unusable on my 550D because it back-focused significantly. When I mounted it on a camera with MFA, the lens got dramatically better. A word to the wise.

I suspect that copy variation might have a big impact on how the version 1 lens is regarded around here. I am very happy with mine. At 200 it is very sharp, at 70 not quite so sharp but I rarely use it down there anyway. I have considered upgrading but it is not really a priority at all. The seven hundred bucks difference isn't with it for me.

RATING --- LENS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COST NEW - - - USED

- - 1 - - - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII - $2,000.00 - $1,750.00

- - 2 - - - SP 70-200mm f/2.8 USD VC - $1,400.00 - $900.00 or less

- - 3 - - - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk I - $1,700.00 - $1,000.00


I had the V1 for many years and was very happy with it.
I felt at the time it was "sharp for a zoom" or "Prime like"

and it absolutely was.

However, optics have improved a good deal since 2002/2003 or so when this lens was launched, particularly where zooms are concerned. now 3rd party options like the Tamron are in fact better than the older Canon in most measurements.

I would agree with everyone here that the older Canon s good enough, but you may want to look also for a used Tamron which may sell for even less when you find one.

Is that KEH?

From what I've seen mkI is going for about a grand here and Craigslist. MkII about 1750.

What Jake said. Please note that if you shoot sports or have specific preferences about the ergonomics on zoom lenses, however, that all 3rd-party EF lenses rotate the zoom ring in the opposite direction from Canon. For some people this is not a concern; in my case, I was forever frustrated when switching to a Tamron zoom because it took me longer to get used to the direction change than the lens spent on the camera.

GregDunn wrote in post #17740570
that all 3rd-party EF lenses rotate the zoom ring in the opposite direction from Canon.

Both my sigma zooms turn the same way. There might be a sigma zoom that goes the 'wrong way', but I think most got he Canon way. Tamron and Tokina go the other way AFAIK.

Thanks guys.

That... really helps. I mean... my plan is to get the ver i an opportunity to grow into other gear and eventually as i grow my skillset/portfolio, down the line get a Ver ii. It just allows me the time to practice and be a decent photographer.

I appreciate the answers guys.

Also thanks for not flaming me for asking such a well discussed and posted question. I just.. couldnt really find the answers i was looking for, even by combining all of the ones i have seen online.

Jamesli82 wrote in post #17741420
Also thanks for not flaming me for asking such a well discussed and posted question. I just.. couldnt really find the answers i was looking for, even by combining all of the ones i have seen online.

You probably didn't get flamed because you actually looked for the answer before posting. Even if there was something out there waaay back, it's not something you can find 3 times in the first page of posts. The v1 is old enough and the vII has been out long enough that it is certainly expected that plenty of folks will not have been around the forums pre-vII and/or not even considering these lenses at the time.

Also, we get banned if we flame people, not that we would anyway of course.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17740527
Is that KEH?

From what I've seen mkI is going for about a grand here and Craigslist. .

Yes, exactly about a grand. The $1750 price for the MkI was the street price back when it was new.

I think that direction is the same, but the position of zoom and focus rings are changed, at least by Tamron is so...