Which 70-200?

[KreutzerPhotography]

I currently have a 70-200 f/4 is and am looking to upgrade... The wedding season is right around the bend...

I am looking at a 70-200 2.8 is on Craigs List for like 1300 or a NEW 70-200 2.8 IS II...

the NEW lens costs almost double therefore I would have to wait  almost a year to buy it.

 Should I wait for the II next year or upgrade to the I before the season starts?

[nitsujwalker]

You could sell your 70-200 and save the money from the 2.8 version and buy the 2.8is.  If that's not an option, I say pick up the one on craigslist (given that it is in good shape and has no problems).  You can sell it later at little to no loss.

[Physicx]

A word of caution. The mark 1 is is less sharp than the non is. That's why the mark ii was released. So do not buy that on  the market

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I picked up a f/2.8 non-is version a couple of weeks back from Craigslist for $350.  Owner even had the B&H receipt from about 1998.  It had set in its box most of the time and not used at all since 2005.
 
I had one a few years back as well as several mk I IS versions and two of the MK II vesions.  That old non-IS lens is very sharp, not as good as the MK II version, but noticibly better than the MK I IS version.
 
However, since you want to use it for indoor weddings, and likely handheld, you will need flash or a unusually steady hand. 
 
Outside, I crank up the shutter speed so its no issue.  I was using it today, and forgot that it was non-IS.  I held the shutter button halfway down and waited for things to stabilize.  They did not, so I looked to make sure IS was turned on, and then realized which lens I was using.  I then cranked the shutter speed up and the images were sharp.
 
I'll likely sell it and get another MK II IS version.  Now that I have a 5D MK III, I'm not as concerned about higher ISO settings in low light.  Usinf f/2.8 in low light with my 5D MK II was marginal, but another stop would work out fine. 
 
I might also look at the Sigma 50-150mm OS, but I am not a Sigma fan to say the least, so it would have to be pretty special to convince me.  I do like the focal range though, dropping to 50mm would be nice.  It might even be a walk around lens.

[KreutzerPhotography]

I havnt had time to play with the 2.8IS... And the rental company by me only caries the II. Does anyone have any experience with both the 2.8I and the f/4 IS models?

Would I be underwhelmed with the 2.8 over the 4 that I already own?

I figured the 2.8IS I couldnt be THAT bad since it was such a renound lens in it s hayday.

[mdm041]

I'd hold out for the 2.8IS II.  I did and have not regretted it for a second.

[facedodge]

Just buy the Mark 2 now and worry about paying for it later.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I havnt had time to play with the 2.8IS... And the rental company by me only caries the II. Does anyone have any experience with both the 2.8I and the f/4 IS models?

Would I be underwhelmed with the 2.8 over the 4 that I already own?

I figured the 2.8IS I couldnt be THAT bad since it was such a renound lens in it s hayday.

The f/2.8 IS was a workhorse lens and many were happy with it except at 200mm, where it was weak.  If you use flashes at the wedding. the f/4 lens will work.  without flash, you may come up short of light.  Make sure you have a wide aperture prime to fall back on in any event.

[gerga]

I'd concur about waiting for the Mk II 2.8 IS if that was a possibility, but from what you say that mightn't be the case.  I own the Mk I from some years ago, and while it's a very nice piece of glass, the Mk II does beat it for sharpness - there are some nice comparisons between the mk I & II around on the net: if you feel you could handle the level of sharpness and abberation offered by the mk I, and really need something now, consider going with a used IS mk I.  The wider aperture and IS can be quite handy for candid and portrait shooting, etc.

[pwp]

I'd go for the MkII straight away. It's funny how the world works. I've found time and time again if I back myself in a capex purchase for the business, my income increases. That's why I buy 1 series bodies, buy the best L glass available and drive new cars. Sounds weird but it works.

With a 70-200 f/2.8isII in your kit straight away you'll probably take better wedding images. That usually means more business. You have only got to pick up ONE extra wedding and you've more than covered the upgrade cost of your lens. In the meantime you have an extra 12 months using a lens you always wanted and will inevitably love.

Paul Wright

[prestonpalmer]

I'd go for the MkII straight away. It's funny how the world works. I've found time and time again if I back myself in a capex purchase for the business, my income increases. That's why I buy 1 series bodies, buy the best L glass available and drive new cars. Sounds weird but it works.

With a 70-200 f/2.8isII in your kit straight away you'll probably take better wedding images. That usually means more business. You have only got to pick up ONE extra wedding and you've more than covered the upgrade cost of your lens. In the meantime you have an extra 12 months using a lens you always wanted and will inevitably love.

Paul Wright

+1  Exactly the truth.

[briansquibb]

I'd go for the MkII straight away. It's funny how the world works. I've found time and time again if I back myself in a capex purchase for the business, my income increases. That's why I buy 1 series bodies, buy the best L glass available and drive new cars. Sounds weird but it works.

With a 70-200 f/2.8isII in your kit straight away you'll probably take better wedding images. That usually means more business. You have only got to pick up ONE extra wedding and you've more than covered the upgrade cost of your lens. In the meantime you have an extra 12 months using a lens you always wanted and will inevitably love.

Paul Wright

+1  Exactly the truth.

I am really pleased with my decision to move to the 70-200 f/2.8 II

I use it most of the time as a candid portrait lens and occasional sports

[rocketdesigner]

I am facing the same decision.

I am leaning to the II version, but the cost is indeed frightening.

However, keep in mind that - when in stock - the II can be had for 2k at the refurb shop:

http://bit.ly/ijIOwy

And, wait to the end of the year and hope that Canon does what they did this past year (great mark down on the retail cost) ... I believe in some places a new II could be had for 2k as well.

[Jakontil]

Undoubtedly go for the MKII version... Used a friend's and took me second to decide to grab a copy myself

[dswatson83]

I currently have a 70-200 f/4 is and am looking to upgrade... The wedding season is right around the bend...
I am looking at a 70-200 2.8 is on Craigs List for like 1300 or a NEW 70-200 2.8 IS II...
the NEW lens costs almost double therefore I would have to wait  almost a year to buy it.
 Should I wait for the II next year or upgrade to the I before the season starts?

Find a refurbished 70-200 2.8 IS II if you can to bring down the price. Canon sells them on its online store. They have coupons as well occasionally but they are hard to find. If you buy that lens, you will never want another. It will last you years. If you pick up the older 2.8, you will always be wanting the IS. Not to mention the sharpness of the version II is out of this world compared to anything else. If you already have the f/4, i'd wait until you can get the 2.8 IS II