Anyone Upgarade to 70-200 II Disappointed

Like many, I'm sure, I'm still weighing the decision to cast off my 70-200 2.8 IS for the mark II version. About a $900 net cost difference is pretty hard to swallow against a lens that already performs so beautifully.

So a question for those who were mark I owners and upgraded to II; is everyone glad you did it or do some of you feel like you definitely got a better lens but still wonder if it was worth the $'s?

No regrets. I've never been so impressed with a zoom lens. It's seriously remarkable and totally lives up to the hype IMO.

FWIW, I was never terribly impressed with the original f/2.8 IS version but I owned 2 different copies over the years.

My primary reason for upgrading was to improve the lenses 140-400mm performance levels - ie with a 2* teleconverter. For my own use in that regard I was greatly pleased with the new M2's performance as it took the quality of photos with this setup from "ok in a pinch but not that great" up to a level of quality that is very much in line with the 100-400mm L.

As an added bonus the new reduced focusing distance and increased magnifiaction factor has made the lens (with and without a 2*TC) even more useful for general nature/wildlife photography.


For those more into the 70-200mm performance area there is a thread somewhere around here comparing the new M2 to the 135mm L and giving the view that both are now very close with regard to image quality.

Overall I think that if you use the 70-200mm a lot for your work then I would put serious thought to upgrading. The original is still a fantastic lens there is no doubt about that - the new one is just better!

I don't think I've heard of one person that hasn't been absolutely floored with the mkii, prev mki owner or not. usually you hear one or two nay sayers but no one has said anything bad about this lens.

The only bad thing is the price. If it was cheaper, allot more people would have taken the plunge.