Getting ready to buy 70-200/2.8 IS L but Mark I or Mark II

Hi everyone,

I am ready to buy the mid-tele zoom but not sure which one. I owned the Mark I before and mainly used it on 5D for wedding, portrait, animals and landscape. I like the lens for the purposes. My Mark I performed well and sharp in general. Wide-open sharpness is okay tho it's not the best 70-200/2.8 lens I had used. Some PP sharpening took care most of the slight f/2.8 softness issues with that lens. I paid about $1400 for it. I have sold it together with my 5D couple years ago.

For those of you who upgraded from 70-200/2.8L IS Mark I to Mark II version, how many of you think the upgrade really worth the extra $1000? I will use it on 7D for the same purpose I used it before, i.e. wedding, animals, portrait and landscape.

But given the big jump of the price tag, any of you upgraders think the Mark I just presents a bigger overall value than the mark II even with the improved sharpness, color and IS performance?

I am also considering to get the 70-200/4 L IS instead of the f/2.8 L IS Mark I for it's color and IS. Any f/2.8 L IS owner also owns the f/4 L IS version and like the f/4 L IS better?

Any thought willbe greatly apreciated!!!

sigh...which one I should get?

Thanks for your help...

Good question! I'm waiting to read some of the answers you get.

I'm quite happy with my mk1 if thats any help

sinjans wrote in post #10065098
I'm quite happy with my mk1 if thats any help

I was quite happy with the copy I had too. But I am actually looking for some comments from people with with Mark I and II... or f/2.8 L IS and f/4 L IS. Thanks for you comment.

i think you're going to have to weigh the differences between the 3 options. you already have experience shooting with the mk1 and that seems to have worked assuming PP is always a part of your process. will you be ok with a f/4 aperture? if so, that might be the better choice between it and the mk1. the mk2 is really the best of both worlds, but you have to pay to play...so whether or not the $1000 difference is worth it to you is something only you would know.

i have shot with both the mk1 and mk2 and personally, the $1000 would not be worth it to me, as i do not shoot mainly in the 70-200 range. the mk1 produces good results and the difference is lessened moreso when you consider PP in the equation as well...but that's just me. if you were to ask me the same question regarding a 24-70 mk2 when it's out, my answer would probably be different

jay spec wrote in post #10065442
i think you're going to have to weigh the differences between the 3 options. you already have experience shooting with the mk1 and that seems to have worked assuming PP is always a part of your process. will you be ok with a f/4 aperture? if so, that might be the better choice between it and the mk1. the mk2 is really the best of both worlds, but you have to pay to play...so whether or not the $1000 difference is worth it to you is something only you would know.

i have shot with both the mk1 and mk2 and personally, the $1000 would not be worth it to me, as i do not shoot mainly in the 70-200 range. the mk1 produces good results and the difference is lessened moreso when you consider PP in the equation as well...but that's just me. if you were to ask me the same question regarding a 24-70 mk2 when it's out, my answer would probably be different

Good to hear from someone with some experience on both Mark I and Mark II. Thanks for your opinion.

How about some words from those who are using 70-200mm range more often?

The upgrade to the MK II is totally worth it. I had a good copy of the MK I and I never had issues with it.
Once, I upgrade to the MK II the IQ is much improved and 4 stop IS is a dream. Here's some images from my zenfolio gallery. All shot with the 1Ds MK III and 70-200 MK II. Enjoy!
http://dlimaging.zenfo​lio.com/p731909028

I too owned the Mark I and now have the II. Although I really did not get to use the Mark I as much as I wanted to I was very happy with its performance and loved that lens. The Mark II is even more amazing. Colors seems to be more accurate, the 4 stop IS is great and with the rounded aperture blades bokeh seems to be nicer as well.

Having said that, there are hundreds of better reviews by folks that are far more educated than me. However I see it this way. A camera lens is a tool for a trade. If you are a professional, which I gather from you doing wedding photography I would go with the Mark II. Yes, its a big hit to the bank account at first, but you will soon recover the cost and be very pleased with your purchase.

Good luck with your decision. If there are any test shots I could help you out with let me know.

From the samples of MKII I have seen, there is no reason for me to upgrade, especially at the stiff premium Canon is charging.

I have a good copy of the f/4 IS and was thinking to upgrade to the f/2.8 II. I went to the local store to hold one. It feels a lot heavier and bigger so I decided that I simply wont use it as much and wont be able to bring it with me as much as the f/4 version. Maybe one day I'll get one when I actually need f/2.8, but now I stick with my f/4.
This thread in dpreview also talked about this. I found it very enlightening.

I think the upgrade is worth every penny, especially if you shoot on the long end a bunch

jdizzle wrote in post #10066002
The upgrade to the MK II is totally worth it. I had a good copy of the MK I and I never had issues with it.
Once, I upgrade to the MK II the IQ is much improved and 4 stop IS is a dream.

I had the same experience and agree with jdizzle completely. The MK II is so good, if I didn't need f2.0 for indoor sports, it could replace my 135 and 200 f2.0s. Totally worth the investment imho.

ahendarman wrote in post #10067038
I have a good copy of the f/4 IS and was thinking to upgrade to the f/2.8 II. I went to the local store to hold one. It feels a lot heavier and bigger so I decided that I simply wont use it as much and wont be able to bring it with me as much as the f/4 version. Maybe one day I'll get one when I actually need f/2.8, but now I stick with my f/4.
This thread in dpreview also talked about this. I found it very enlightening.

He has some good points but, not everyone can justify this lens. It's expensive for sure. In comparison to the MK I and MK II, I noticed that the IS settles much quicker. Yes the f/4 IS is lighter and you can crank up the ISO but, do you really want to spend more time behind the PC removing noise? And if you expose incorrectly, the noise is more noticeable and trying to correct/recover is a pain. IS isn't the end all even if your subject is moving and how often are you going to shoot at shutter speeds of 1/15 sec? Probably not very often. If you're happy with what you have then keep it. Some just want the latest and greatest and the MK II is definitely great! The feature that won me over for the MK II is the IQ and it's easily justifiable to spend the money when I made my money back from it.

I waited to buy the MKI because of the rumours on the MKII. Now the MKII is there and I bought it and I'm very happy I did!

Everyone loves the MKII, and if you have the funds there's no reason not to get it.