Is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II that much better?

Is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II that much better then the older EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS? Is it worth the extra $$$ on the newer lens?

in a word, "YES!"

My brother in law has the 1st version and he is not happy with it. He says my 70-200 f/4.0L IS is sharper. We both use the 40D.

Y e S. The mark 1 was not sharp.

Yes it is !
Go with the version 2 if you can afford it.

I have the II and love it. It's beyond all expectations. I havn't really compared anything buut "they" say that it is much sharper. The f/4 is also very, very sharp.

MTF-curves here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …S-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The mark 1 is not bad. I bought it not too long ago and have been very pleased with it.

Although.. Yesterday, at Photokina, I tried the mark 2 on a 1D4. At 2.8, it delivered results which my mark 1 and 50D could not produce at all. Ofcourse it may be the combination together too, but the sharpness of the lens at 2.8 was in-cre-di-ble. No other words for that.

So yes, it is better. But ask yourself the following. Is it worth the premium to you? To me it wasn't. Not at this current time, maybe in the future it will be. But not for now. And so, I keep going on being happy with my mark 1!

DeVVitt wrote in post #10968692
So yes, it is better. But ask yourself the following. Is it worth the premium to you? To me it wasn't. Not at this current time, maybe in the future it will be. But not for now. And so, I keep going on being happy with my mark 1!

^This.

The mk1 is by no means a bad lens, pros have been using it for many years to take some truly awesome pictures, but, if you feel that the lens isn't performing up to your standards, then go ahead and upgrade.
While this forum can and will push lens purchases on you , it's still a good idea to buy by necessity. Go to a store and try it out if possible, then decide if it's worth it to you.

my 70-200 2.8 mark I is sharp as a tack. As sharp as my f.4 was

This is the lens I want for my 7D

"The lens performed highly impressive here already but it's even better on APS-C DSLRs due to the sweet spot effect ("center" crop) here. The resolution is nothing short of phenomenal for a zoom lens and that's throughout the focal length range as well as across the image field."Photozone DE

http://www.photozone.d​e …n_70200_28is2_5​0d?start=1

Koshin wrote in post #10969770
my 20-700 2.8 mark I is sharp as a tack. As sharp as my f.4 was

damn i wish there really were a 20-700 2.8 lens....

I never had a problem with my original between 70 and 200mm and even was very happy with its performance with a 1.4 teleconverter - and I honestly think that for most people the quality is still there with that lens to make it worth owning.

I only upgraded my copy because I wanted to push further for a 140-400mm lens and the cost of selling and upgrading was less than purchasing a 100-400mm lens. That was where I did see a big jump, not just in quality but in usability. Quality across the lens does improve, but its moving from one level of usability to the next whilst when really pushing things with a 2*TC it moved from fun, but not that usable to very usable shots.

Why can't people do a simple search? I see more 70-200 threads started about the same question than anything else. Almost to the point where we need a sticky telling people that the 2.8ii is worth it if you can afford it.

I doubt this post will change anything and will probably find another thread asking the same later today maybe even later this hour.. Yes the lens is sick and woth the $$. If you can afford it, get it. If not, stop asking.

Ps: this reminds me of the "Which echaust should I get?" threads on the car forums. It's been answered before, just take 2 minutes to look for it and you'll get your answer. Ohh and the lens showoff threads show more than enough examples for me to base my decisions on..

Its absolutely worth the cost for the new version!

Yes, it's that much better.

It's an expensive upgrade but if you're using it at f/2.8 most of the time as I do it's worth it.