Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS vs. Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II

[heather_willman]

<p>I accidentally posted this in the wrong forum the first time around, so I apologize for the duplication.</p>

 

<p>Hi All,<br />I am just getting into some small weddings, and I've been looking at the original 70-200 f.8 IS lens, and now version II is out, and I'm just wondering if the upgrade is really worth the 1,000? Does anyone have any real world experience with both of the lenses? Photography is what I do on the side, and am really interested in the II, but just not sure I can part with that much cash....or at least sneak it by my hubby :)<br />Thanks!</p>

 

 

[nathangardner]

<p>I haven't used the new II version, but from what I've heard, its amazing. If you have a deep wallet and your budget allows, then by all means get the II, but the original version was a very highly regarded lens for years and just because an update comes out it doesn't instantly make the old lens sub par. Also, with the release of the new lens a lot of the older versions should be hitting the used market allowing you to get it at a great price (theoretically). I would go with the original if budget is any issue at all, especially for your purposes; it would be a great wedding lens and since photography isn't paying your bills, I wouldn't drop that much cash on one lens when there are great alternatives.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The version I of this lens served as a standard workhorse for wedding photographers for many years, and I wouldn't hesitate to put it to that use.</p>

<p>I've seen shots of test charts that show the version II is sharper. But realistically the version I is sharp enough for most purposes. I've got a 20x30 inch print from the version I, shot at 200mm f/2.8, that looks great.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Heather,</p>

<p>I have had my MkI for years, and have no intention of upgrading, the images I have seen, whilst they do offer a little more sharpness and contrast o test targets, certainly don't warrant the upgrade, and I doubt if they would be visible in prints and certainly not on the net unless enlarged to 100% or more. Besides I never felt my MkI lacked sharpness or contrast!</p>

[heather_willman]

<p>Thanks all. Thats kind of what I was thinking, and my wallet is thanking you ;)</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Does anyone have any real world experience with both of the lenses?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one has answered your question yet. Neither can I.</p>

<p>At least, have a look at this review to help form your answer:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103</p>

<p>If you make enough on your "side" job. then the long term rewards of the extra "$1000" should be worth the "upgrade".</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I cannot answer your question, as I have never actually met the II version. Let me give you answers from two perspectives, and hopefully one or both of them will be useful to you.</p>

 

<p>I don't doubt that the II version is better; Canon says it is, and the relatively few third-party tests/reviews I've seen back this up. But is it $1k better? Unless you have the money sitting around waiting to be spent on a lens, I doubt it. The I version has been a professional mainstay for several years. Clearly, it's good enough for professional use.</p>

 

<p>The second perspective is from personal experience. I've owned the I version for several years, and have primarily used it on a 20D (both with and without Canon's 1.4x II teleconverter); I haven't done more than briefly playing with this lens on my 7D yet. In looking at hundreds if not thousands of images I've taken with this lens, I have never once thought "I hope Canon releases a new version of this lens which is better." It's a very, very good lens. I've taken lots of bad pictures with it, but that's not the fault of the lens; the problem is the idiot holding the camera.</p>

 

<p>To add a bit to the end of this, my personal philosophy is that when shopping for a widget, you should buy the best widget you can afford, even if it isn't the best value. So if the II version is within your budget, and buying it won't mean you have to skimp on something else that's useful, then buy the II version; it's not the better value, but it is the better lens. But if the choice is something along the lines of "Should I buy the II, or buy the I and put the extra $1k into item XYZ which would be useful to me" then I would suggest buying version I and putting the extra $1k into whatever would be useful; the I is more than good enough and item XYZ will be of more use than the modest improvements in version II.</p>

 

<p>That's my two cents on this, and it's worth exactly what you paid for it :-)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Heather, have a look at The-Digital-Picture's review, and in particular check out the target test shots, comparing II and I version. I just had a look, the increase in corner sharpness at 70mm wide-open is astounding:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242</a></p>

<p>(mouse-over to see the diff's.)</p>

<p>FWIW, I have the first version, and no plans to upgrade, it's fine for me, and I'm not pro.</p>

[brian_hutchison2]

<p>I have both, plan on selling my Mk I soon. The II is prime sharp... no kidding. Full 100% crops and it looks great. I put on a 1.4x tele and it still looks as good as the Mk I. I hadn't considered the 2x on the Mk 1, but I will now with the II.<br>

If you can afford it, its worth it I think. That said, its not like the Mk I has gotten any worse just because the new lens is out. Its still an awesome lens used by professionals all over the world. </p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>The II model also has better IS. 1.0-1.5 stops better.</p>