New v/s Old Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS ?

[fingersandfeet]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I have to make a choice between Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM(<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=19092">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=19092</a>) and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM(<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469</a>). I mostly photograph kids (outdoors/indoors). Are there any major differences between the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Thank you. Regards, Ankur Aras.</p>

<p> </p>

[robertbody]

<p>Ankur, are you sure you want "IS" with that lens? In my situation I thought about it..... $2500 vs $1900 [or $1650 for mint condition from MyGreenWayStores.com]....vs $1100 for non-IS, and tests show non-IS slightly sharper wide open than the "IS" (version I).<br>

In my situation I picked the $1100 non-IS, it's on its way in the mail... the reason being that I don't really plan to handhold it in low light, I will definitely use it in low light, but on a tripod, and for the price difference I would rather get aditionally 135mm f/2 or something else... that's my situation.<br>

From some reviews I read people prefer the version II to version I (both IS), but price difference is there, and most hesitate to switch from I to II, but those who don't have one, look at the II being "more rewarding". In my case a choice between 2 lenses beats out 1 that seems ideal, because no lens is ideal for all situations, and sometimes you just don't want to use a zoom.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The old one is reviewed at (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/199-canon-ef-70-200mm-f28-usm-l-is-test-report--review">Photozone.de link</a>), but they don't seem to have had a go at the new one. The other notices that I have seen (such as both at dpreview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10010508canon70200isii.asp">link</a>) seem to suggest that there are some major differences in optical design, and I would always bet that Canon <em>wouldn't</em> reduce the quality of the lens--their history does not agree with a cynical view that they only make lenses cheaper to build, I think.</p>

<p>I would always want the IS, myself, especially with a lens like this. No matter how much it costs....</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>The IS II is way overpriced. If it is not immediately obvious why it is $600 more than the IS 1 then to me it is not worth it. My 85 1.2 was ony $1200, man I could buy 2 - 1.2 super fast primes for the price of 1 - 70-200 F2.8 IS II. Unless you are shooting sports and are too week to carry a carbon fiber tripod what is the purpose?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I have the MkI and have seen no good reason to "upgrade". There are minor improvements in sharpness and IS effectiveness but my MkI copy does not lack either. Some people report that the MkII has slightly less appealing bokeh, but that is a very subjective thing.</p>

<p>My personal recommendation, if it going to be your bread and butter lens then get the newer version, IF, you don't have to wait to save the extra, or miss out on something else you need.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Comparisons of the two generations of the 70-200/2.8 IS have been posted a number of times in the last few months, so you can find tons of discussion in the archives. I think pretty much everyone agrees that the new one is better. Whether it's better enough to be worth the extra price is in large part something each prospective buyer will have to decide for themselves.</p>

[larry h.]

<p>Just out of curiosity, has anyone tested the new version with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to see how it compares to the old version? I heard that the old version does not match well with the 2x. It would be great if the new version was significantly better with the 2x.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I own both (at the moment). I was skeptical the II could be better than my trusty original. It is...by a good margin. Those of you who are skeptics (like I once was), find one to try. I'd like to hear your opinion. I really can't tell that much difference in the quality of the bokeh from either lens.</p>

<p>Larry H, I was thinking about doing a test on that exact topic. When I can get to it, I'll let you know what I think.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>As a new purchase the MkII makes sense, when mine breaks, gets stolen or my competition are producing noticeably sharper images than this then I'll get the MkII. Until then I just don't see it as a $1,000 upgrade. This image, shot Sunday, just confirms my commitment to my MkI. Shot at 165mm 1/125 sec wide open, uncropped, unedited and unsharpened.</p><div></div>

[fingersandfeet]

<p>Thank you everyone. Now I can make a choice. <br>

Robert, yes I need the "is" lens. Yes you are right, about no lens being ideal for all situations. <br>

JMD, I want the "is" one too. <br>

MP, I agree with you and Robert about going with two lenses, over one. Also I agree that prime lenses are the best. For the kind of assignments I am getting these days, I need a zoom 70-200. <br>

Scott, Yes this lens will be my bread and butter for some of the assignments I am working on (and will be working on in near future). <br>

Thank you once again. Regards, Ankur.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>If that is the case, Ankur, Go For It, get the IS Version II.<br /> I was in a similar situation but with camera bodies, do I get 1D Mark III and 5D Mark II, for the different kind of pictures I take....... or do I spend about the same money on a 1D Mark IV? I decided the 1 body would be something I prefer, because it fits me better.<br /> If you feel you can do a better job with a better tool, and it will help both physically and be motivating to you [not just the first week or so]......... then go for it, get it, enjoy it, and take great pictures with it :-).<br>

Let me quote someone in an email today, it just so happens that he too switched from 70-200mm Mark I to Mark II: "I needed better glass, so I went with the 70-200 series II. I had to sell my 70-200mm series I, 24-70, and 135mm L series lenses to afford it, but I'm pretty happy now. I REALLY like it, a nice step up." He doesn't go into detail, that's all he says, but he is speaking from experience, he shoots sports... I could give you his email if you wish...</p>

[fingersandfeet]

<p>Yes Robert, I will get the IS version II. 70-200 will work great for my assignments. I would like to speak to your friend who shoots sports. Please can you give me his email address. I have sent you an email. Thank you. Regards, Ankur</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think you have chosen wisely (if expensively). ;)</p>

<p>Especially so, if this is to be your workhorse.</p>

[fingersandfeet]

<p>JDM, Yes ;) <br>

Thank you everyone. Regards, Ankur</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>

<p >For what it’s worth, a good version of the MK1 works very well, the new version notwithstanding. These were shot over the weekend with a 1.4 converter attached to it. No sharpening applied. Yes, they look well in larger versions of the jpegs.</p>

</p>

<p ><img src="http://SavasK.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v16/p466758292-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p ><img src="http://SavasK.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v5/p443932868-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[fingersandfeet]

<p>Thank you Savas. </p>