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

[killswitch]

I know the version two is sharper, has better flare control, and better IS, etc. I am only concerned about the sharpness across the range. I can get a new/semi new version 1 for 1500usd and was wondering if version 2 (which is 2100usd) really makes that much of a difference in terms of sharpness? The lens will be paired with a 5DIII and will be used to shoot wildlife, portraits, events. No sports. Go for the version one or get version two?

[neuroanatomist]

The original f/2.8 IS is the least sharp of the f/2.8's, and also not as sharp as the f/4 IS.  The MkII is the sharpest of the 70-200's.  The difference between the MkI and MkII is real, but not huge.

But...you mention wildlife.  If you ever plan to put a 1.4x or 2x extender behind the 70-200, get the MkII - no question. The original takes a big IQ hit from a 1.4x and a very big hit from the 2x. The MkII with the 2x is almost as good as the 100-400's native 400mm.

[killswitch]

The original f/2.8 IS is the least sharp of the f/2.8's, and also not as sharp as the f/4 IS.  The MkII is the sharpest of the 70-200's.  The difference between the MkI and MkII is real, but not huge.

But...you mention wildlife.  If you ever plan to put a 1.4x or 2x extender behind the 70-200, get the MkII - no question. The original takes a big IQ hit from a 1.4x and a very big hit from the 2x. The MkII with the 2x is almost as good as the 100-400's native 400mm.

Hmm. So, the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) is sharper than the version 1 IS right? I was checking that 'lens resolution charts' from digital picture labsite and I was surprised that non-IS appears to be sharper than then the version 1 IS. I didnt want to believe it. Any idea if the f2.8 non-IS takes a big hit when extenders are used on them?

[neuroanatomist]

So, the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) is sharper than the version 1 IS right? I was checking that 'lens resolution charts' from digital picture labsite and I was surprised that non-IS appears to be sharper than then the version 1 IS. I didnt want to believe it. Any idea if the f2.8 non-IS takes a big hit when extenders are used on them?

Correct.  The non-IS takes a bigger hit from the extenders than the MkII. 

Honestly, if you have the budget and don't mind the weight/size, the 70-200 II is pretty much the best telezoom lens available today. 

[jdramirez]

I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) and it is a little lighter than the IS mk ii, but I really don't see what all the complaints are about.  It is heavy, but it isn't anything a few dumbells wouldn't fix.  But that's not really your question. 

In regards to the 70-200, I think the big deal between v1 and v2 is demand.  I am quite surprised that v1 is anywhere near 1500.  I think 1100 is a suitable price considering it isn't as great as v2.  And with v2, it is the standard bearer.  Most everyone wants that lens whether they are a professional or a hobbiest.  And that won't change anytime soon, so you can be gauranteed that if you ever decide to sell the lens, you won't lose a ton. 

It is possible to get the v2 for 1600 from Canon when they have a 20% off sale, but you are just as likely to win the lottery as to actually get a v2 while on sale. 

[acaurora]

I have used the Mk I for quite a while before getting the Mk II, and I would agree in that the Mk II is sharper but have found that the bokeh in the Mk I seems to be better. However with the sharpness improvement and the color seems to be a little better, the Mk II was a good investment for me

[vuilang]

if you want the 70-200.. get the Version II.. it's the best and well worth the extra.

and to make it sound better: if version 1 is $1000 n version 2 is $2000.. i'll still go with Ver II

[AmbientLight]

There may be a question how you define: Is it good enough for me?

I bought the version I with IS years ago and I am still using it and haven't felt the urge to upgrade to a version II. Why? I am using it mostly for portraits, where I benefit from its beautiful bokeh and I am shooting mostly on full-frame backs (5D Mark III and 1D-X) not having the high pixel density of a 7D or perhaps the rumoured upcoming high-MP camera. If you shoot with crop sensors the Mark II appears to me to be the better choice, but version I has been the tool of choice for many years with users on 1Ds Mark III and similiar bodies, so I woudn't say that it is a bad lens.

The Mark II just happens to be better except for bokeh, so it is basically your need (more detail or better bokeh combined with a lower price), which should determine your choice.

[Menace]

Get the v2 - mine stays on my camera pretty much all the time 

[nomad85]

I'm a wedding photographer mostly (and studio photography). I have the 5d series (classic, II and III) and use the 70-200 2.8 IS I, which I bought after the announcement of the version II. Why go for the version I, cause it saved me over 1000 euro's and all shots with the 70-200 version I are sharp enough for a 20x30inch print.

The version II is definitely better, but the version I is always good enough for a large print. My clients will never see the difference if I buy a version II, so I invested the 1000 euro's in other glass, which I can use in pictures my clients will see the difference of (in my case the 35 1.4).

Getting the best is great, if funds are unlimited. Since mine are not, I rather invest smart and get the stuff my clients will notice in their shots.

[jointdoc]

There is a good podcast by Martin Bailey #235 and #236 in March 2010 comparing these two lenses.  You may want to check out his website.

[jjsanc2]

Simply put, go with the MkI unless you live between 2.8-3.5 and need your images, between that range specifically, to be the sharpest possible. In my experience, having owned and tested both simultaneously, the MkI and MkII are equally sharp from f4 and beyond. As for clarity, color and contrast, the MkII is excellent out of the camera. However, with good PP, you can achieve the same look and feel with the MkI (bokeh notwithstanding, however the differences between the two are greatly exaggerated IMHO).

I kept the MkII because I shoot a lot of high ISO low-light indoor sports, and the difference in sharpness wide open is enough for me to justify the additional cost.

No matter your choice, the MkI and MkII are legendary performers, and have produced some of the greatest sports  and editorial images in recent history.  There might even be a wildlife or wedding photographer that has made a few pennies with these lenses. 

Cheers!

[AlanF]

If you are not going to use the lens below f/4, then what is the point of buying it when you can get  the f/4 IS lens which is sharper, much lighter, has 4 stops of IS and is cheaper?

[killswitch]

Awesome insights folks. I'm going through the feedback, and yeah looking at real life samples, both are amazing.

There is a good podcast by Martin Bailey #235 and #236 in March 2010 comparing these two lenses.  You may want to check out his website.

Thanks a lot jointdoc, That was a wonderful review by  Martin Bailey. I am going to save up, and get the MKII. No point cheaping out on glasses. I have a 24-70, and really dont dig it's sharpness although it gave me some nice images. Since it was used on a 60D and I wouldn't bump the iso hence used to shoot wide open which ultimately gave softer results. Now that I will be using it with the 5DIII, I am probably going to stop down to f3.5 or 4 and bump up the iso to compensate. Neuro and others helped me figure out I will need to AFMA the 24-70. If that doesn't help then I will have to figure out if I want to send it to Canon to get it calibrated to the 5DIII.