Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

<p>According to this person here http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/pho/1642801909.html, the version 2 is the lens to beat.</p>

<p>In case the ad gets pulled, here is the unedited ad;</p>

<p><strong>"</strong> <strong>Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II USM - $2500 (WEST TORONTO)</strong></p>

<hr />

<p><strong>Date: 2010-03-13, 4:49PM EST<br />

<hr />

<p><strong> Brand new Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II USM. I have purchased 2 lenses today. I am very critical about my equipment. I have the version 1 of this lens. I made several comparison shots aganst my old version. At 200 mm the new lens is in totally different league. Unreally sharp even wide open. The contrast and colours are way better as well. I am very excited about the results. It is as sharp at 135 mm as a Canon 135 mm lens which tells you a lot. I can email you comparing shots from the both versions for you can see for yourself. $2500 firm. Receipt from Vistek provided. Email the phone number if interested. Thank you, have a great day!</strong></p>

 

<p><strong><br /> <br /> </strong></p>

<ul>

<li> <strong>Location: WEST TORONTO </strong> </li>

<li><strong>it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests</strong> </li>

</ul>

 

<table border="0" summary="craigslist hosted images">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="center"><strong></strong></td>

<td align="center"><strong></strong></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td align="center"><strong></strong></td>

<td align="center"><strong></strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p><strong>PostingID: 1642801909</strong> <strong>"</strong> </p></strong>

<p>Does anyone own version 2 yet and can comment on it's comparable IQ to version 1?</p>

<p>I always thought the old version was widely praised for it's sharpness, color and contrast wide open. I've seen it said it's about as good as the 200/2.8L prime.</p>

<p>I find it amazing that Canon engineers can go back in time and change all those old 70-200/2.8L zooms so that the new one makes the old ones look like lenses made from the bottom of Coke bottles.</p>

<p>I guess the MkIII version will make the MkII look pretty sick.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess the MkIII version will make the MkII look pretty sick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will be retired by the time the MkIII comes out. LOL!</p>

<p>Can't comment on quality.</p>

<p>My question is why did he buy two? Is this one poorer than the one he is keeping? Or did he decide that this version II was not in fact worth keeping over his original. In any case the price is too high for what is effectively a used lens. I know the price savings is about $400 CDN when you factor in the tax, but if I were spending that kind of money I'd buy new or at least hold out for a much greater discount. </p>

<p>I don't know about the fellows information above (as far as his comparisons), however I do own a 135mm, and I was EXTREMELY impressed by the new 70 - 200 2.8 IS L II that I just picked up two days ago. I could not believe how sharp it was, it is VERY VERY sharp. Also, the AF is VERY impressive on the 1D Mark IV in near dark conditions! <br>

Michael.<br>

<p>

<b>[signature URL Removed. Not allowed under Photo.Net Policy]</b>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">If it's so good one may wonder why he's selling it.....</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">I had the 70-200/2.8 IS for several years, outlasting 70-200/2.8 (no IS) and 70-200/4 IS (bad bokeh). Great IQ, BQ, AF, whathaveyou. I eventually only sold it due to weight. It simply stayed at home. :-(</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<p>This guy is just a salesman. There may be some differences, and although I haven't personally compared them, I would imagine he's pumping up the new lens quite a bit to sell it. If it was that good, why would he sell it anyways? When he says he can email comparison shots, he'll probably email a shot taken at Small Jpeg on the I version vs. a RAW conversion on the II version to emphasize the differences. Just another salesman trick. No one knows this guy and he has no credibility; I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously. Also, he thinks the correct spelling of "and really" is "unreally." That wasn't just a typo.</p>

<p>I just picked up the MKI version from a full time pro friend who just received his MKII. He says the MKII is sharper and has better IS, and if you need it, it's worth it.<br>

You can pick up the MKII for $2500 new with warranty. I would never pay new retail price for a secondary market lens, no matter how new or how good. There is always a risk factor in buying secondary market equipment. That risk has to be built into the resale price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it amazing that Canon engineers can go back in time and change all those old 70-200/2.8L zooms so that the new one makes the old ones look like lenses made from the bottom of Coke bottles.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, no! That's the Canon marketing guys, not the engineers. ;-)</p>

<p>Pesonally, I never purchase a used lens, unless I knew the individual 110%... For the price difference, I would go new... But, again, if you do not need the extra bit of sharpness, don't bother... I did it because I wanted the extra stop for IS in low light and the focusing works better with the new 1D AND because I managed to get a VERY good price from someone that did purchase my old 2.8 70-200. But otherwise, I wouldn't bother...</p>

<p>Now I know who to avoid buying from in West Toronto. What a load of rubbish!</p>

<p>$2500 is too much... I bought MK1 a few weeks ago and I was so impressed with the shots I can take... for $1750 lens, it was worth it... I'm not paying extra $750 or so to get get extra sharpness, MK1 is too much for an amateur like me.</p>

<p>The price will drop in about 6-8 months.</p>

<p>A year and a half later, the 24/1.4 II is still the same $1700 as it was when it was introduced. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a price drop.</p>