Want the 70-200mm II but can't justify the cost?

Hi everyone,

I really want to pick up the 70-200mm IS II, but the cost of a little over 2K is just so much. Would it really be much of a sacrifice to go for a different lens? What would be the most comparable at that range, and would it even come close IQ wise, ect.?

What would be the best value at that 70-200 area?

Just trying to ask a bit. If the IS II really is just that good I would be willing to drop the money for it. But if it's just slightly better than something it may be very much worth the sacrifice to save money towards more lenses. Problem is I have no experience with the lens itself or other lenses in that area, so I just would like to get some opinions on what direction I should take.

Thanks everyone!

What type of photos do you take?

70-200 F/4L is considerably cheaper and has nearly the same IQ with a 1-stop loss in speed.

It's light years better than any of the 70-200s except the f2.8L IS.

Vs the MkI, the MkII is only "Really Better."

I came across this dilemma as well and chose to go with a 70-200f/4IS + Prime. For me thats going to be a 50 1.4, but i also considered the 85 1.8.

FlyingPhotog wrote:
It's light years better than any of the 70-200s except the f2.8L IS.

Vs the MkI, the MkII is only "Really Better."

Actually the 70-200 f4l is was the best (sharpest) of the older 70-200s. The 70-200 2.8 II obviously bests it, but it's also double the price for an incremental increase in sharpness and an extra stop.

Marloon wrote in post #10923055
What type of photos do you take?

Well, I like to take photos outdoors a lot, usually on trails and such, I don't have a good tripod ($20 walmart thing). Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking. I also go to the city a lot, so if I can find a reason to use it then, there as well; but the idea is outdoors.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10923066
the MkII is only "Really Better."

Me speak english good for real.

It really is a jet fighter in a piston engine age, in my opinion. But only you can justify whether it's worth it for you, your style of shooting and your pocketbook. It certainly isn't "only slightly" better than the other options; it's the only lens in its class, with other 70-200s fighting for second place.

i was in the same boat before.. but when i decided and jump off the fall. i was amaze with it speed / IQ / bokeh and it was all worth it

bobfather wrote in post #10923089
Actually the 70-200 f4l is was the best (sharpest) of the older 70-200s. The 70-200 2.8 II obviously bests it, but it's also double the price for an incremental increase in sharpness and an extra stop.

One stop of physical aperture and about four stops worth of new IS goodness.

I've seen sharp images from the MkII taken hand held at 200mm f/2.8 @ 1/8 of a second.

I know two top aviation shooters who feel good enough about the MkII that they're willing to shoot air to air sessions without a gyro.

The benefits run a wee bit deeper than "incremental."

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10923147
One stop of physical aperture and about four stops worth of new IS goodness.

I've seen sharp images from the MkII taken hand held at 200mm f/2.8 @ 1/8 of a second.

I know two top aviation shooters who feel good enough about the MkII that they're willing to shoot air to air sessions without a gyro.

The benefits run a wee bit deeper than "incremental."

This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out, this type of personal information right here! ... Right now the MkII is winning...

Oh, and the MFD is noticeably shorter with the MkII as well...

Kooper wrote in post #10923115
Well, I like to take photos outdoors a lot, usually on trails and such, I don't have a good tripod ($20 walmart thing). Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking. I also go to the city a lot, so if I can find a reason to use it then, there as well; but the idea is outdoors.

It has 70-200 f/4L written all over it.. lighter (1.5 Vs 3 pounds), fast enough (f/4) and nearly as good IQ compared to f/2.8 MK2... Of course, your pocket will be heavier by about $1200 after the purchase, which you can possibly use towards some other lens(or lenses - 85mm 1.8 + 50mm 1.4??) or better body?

f/4IS has the same IS mechanism as f/2.8 IS MK2 (4 stops)..

nemesis47 wrote in post #10923205
or better body?

Yeah I've needed to shoot video for class recently, so the 7D has looked very nice

Thanks to everyone for the input. Again I'm still a newbie and don't have much experience with the lenses, even hands on, so I appreciate more educated/knowledgeable opinions.