70-200mm 2.8 (No IS) is it sharp? (vs MKII)

Im just asking as I used to have this lens sometime back and sold it. Logic says that it is sharper than the new MKII as it has less glass. But is that the case? A lot of people are after the MKII and what have you for the IS.

I just want to know if someone can help me out here - I dont need the IS version, and would like to know if the "old" design of the 70-200 2.8 is as sharp as the modern 2.8 mkII IS.

Out of all 70-200L versions, my opinion is that the 70-200L II is as sharp as 70-200L f/4 IS or even sharper. And IMO, 70-200L f/4 IS is sharper than 70-200L f/2.8.

In your case, if you need the f/2.8 but absolutely don't need IS, I think you have to ask yourself, is the marginal improvement in sharpness and contrast between 70-200L f/2.8 vs. 70-200L II alone justify $1000+ in price.

My reply from the other thread where you asked the same question;

zincozinco wrote in post #11260679
how dose the MKII fare against the "old" 70-200 2.8 without IS - logic says that less glass - sharper the image?

Logic does not account for all the advances in glass technology in the last decade.
The new lens is clearly sharper and better in pretty much every regard. This has been the trend this decade,. Canon and others are not replacing their top shelf lenses just to put a "II" on them,. they do it when the technology and advancements are such that they can make a solidly superior optic.

It was true that the Non IS was sharper then the IS version I.. but ten years later Canon have trumped the Non IS versions with both the f/2.8L IS II and the f/4L IS.

As an owner of an f2.8 non-IS, yes, the MK II is sharper from the samples I've seen. I think my lens is pretty amazing on its own, but that extra $600-$700 (?) for the IS buys tangible benefits beyond just f-stops through IS. The non-IS is a 1995 design, and it's held its usefulness well to 2010, but things have improved.

I'm appreciative of the value in my non-IS though. It's not holding me back.

thanks a million guys!! Im not sure either - just that im stomped by the sharpness of the 200 2.8 MK2 and the 135mm 2.0 and people are comparing the new zoom to them and my old 70-200 was never that sharp...

Im thinking of getting the "old design" and loose the 135 rather than loosing the 85 and the 135 for the v2?? this is the dilemma...

thing is also where i have seen marginal differences of the mk1 and mk2 and since the non IS is sharper than mk1 it has to be VERY marginal to the v2...

zincozinco wrote in post #11261054
thanks a million guys!! Im not sure either - just that im stomped by the sharpness of the 200 2.8 MK2 and the 135mm 2.0 and people are comparing the new zoom to them and my old 70-200 was never that sharp...

I'd put my money on the primes still giving nicer looking images, primarily due to nicer bokeh. Don't get too hung up on small differences in sharpness unless you've got extreme uses and/or print sizes.