70-200mm Mk I vs Mk II

[JoeKerslake]

So I've been weighing up investing in the 70-200mm f/2.8, but I was wondering whether the Mk II is really that much better, and worth almost double the price of the Mk I.

Anyone had any experience shooting with both?

 

[Harv]

I owned the original and used it extensively for a number of years. When the v.II was announced, I ordered one immediately and never looked back. The improvement was huge. Much better IS and a lot sharper.... particularly at the long end and wide open which is how it is most often used. Well worth the extra money in my opinion.

 

[rs]

The mk I 70-200/2.8 IS wasn't too shabby at f4, and would actually put in a half OK performance at f2.8 in the mid range of the zoom. However, use it near either end of the range and f2.8 didn't return much in the way of sharpness.

The new one is a whole different animal, producing amazing results at any focal length or aperture setting, and even with the 1.4x TC. The IS is greatly improved too.

I'm very glad I upgraded.

 

[gwflauto]

The image quality is outstanding with version II and the results are much better in many situations because of the outstanding IS. I sold the old one almost immediately after the first experience with this lens.

 

[JoeKerslake]

I thought this would be the case! Time to start saving!

 

[bmwzimmer]

I just picked up the mkii a month ago and the sharpness is improved at f/2.8 but its hard to find too much of an improvement Beyond f/4. The IS is improved and doesnt make a metallic ticking sound when it starts up and focus speed is about the same. The min focus distance is shorter by a foot which helps in some situations. Close ups at 200mm is more like 200-240mm depending how far you are from the subject so it breathes backwards from other 70-200 that gives you 135-180mm at 200. I can't remember if the mki had the same breathing or not. Finally it just looks cooler than the mki with the larger zoom ring and nicer hood.
Cons is the price but i got mine last month new for $1850 w rebate and its 1900 right now with rebates (street prices). With the extra sharpness, i think the bokeh is not as nice as the mki. Thats all the cons i can think of really...

 

[tomscott]

Depends which one you mean.

The MKI non IS is sharper than the MKI IS version, the MKII is only very slightly sharper than the MKI non IS but that IS on the MKII is incredible my keepers from the non IS to the MKII has gone up 50% and it works with ex very well.

 

[BL]

imo the sharpness is marginally better on the mkII. Pixel peeping, yes you can see it. But in prints, arguable whether you would see the difference.

Buy the mkII for the much improved MFD and the updated IS.

 

[Northstar]

as others have said...once you move up past f4, the difference is minimal. but at f2.8, the difference is significant.

you also get improved IS and the ability to get good results with both extenders on the version ii.

also, the AF is slightly faster on the version ii. you can see the difference in sharpness here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

you get a lot more for the extra money IMO

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had five of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. They are good lenses, but as you get near 200mm, their IQ suffers unless you stop them down. The MK II is noticibly better, and is usable with 1.4X and 2X TC's, while the MK I looks bad with TC's, probably because its used at 200mm with a TC.

For a few hundred more, they are worth it.

BTW, they are not twice the price. These are the best prices I've found for lenses from legitimate Authorized Canon dealers, occasionally, a lower price pops up on ebay.

$1349 for the old one
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00053/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f2.8L-USM-price.html

$1899 for the new one (CPW Street Price)
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02968/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f2.8L-IS-USM-II-price.html

 

[cliffwang]

I had own the MK1 for about 2 years. It was good, but not great. f2.8 - f4 was soft for me. Don't remember how the IS performed. I liked it but not loved it.
I was so exited when the MK2 released and bought soon after it on the market. I cannot be happier for that decision.

 

[TexPhoto]

The Mk I is a wonderful lens. But the price difference is not that great, and Buying a Mark 1 means always wishing if you should have bought mark II and wondering if/when you will upgrade.

 

[H. Jones]

I had tested out the Mk I for a while before renting the Mk II and I immediately made the choice for the Mk II. The Mk II is leagues above the Mk I; there's a peace of mind with it too, since you get to decide your aperture based on creative/depth of field reasons rather than for the best image quality. Previously I'd shoot sports at F/3.5 or F/4 to try to get the most out of the lens, but with the Mk II you can comfortably shoot at F/2.8 and have pictures just as beautiful as they are at F/4, there's little improvement by stopping down and the IQ at f/2.8 is simply fantastic.

My big deciding factor was, was I going to invest $1400 for a lens that's been around since 2001 and will soon be obsolete if resolution of cameras continues on the trend it is, or invest the $2000 I paid for my F/2.8 IS II in a lens that would likely still be a strong contender five-ten years from now. The Mk II is future-proof, for now, and I think that's probably the biggest thing that sold me on it.

 

[Northstar]

The Mk I is a wonderful lens. But the price difference is not that great, and Buying a Mark 1 means always winding if you should have bought mark II and wondering if/when you will upgrade.

this is so true.

 

[Policar]

None of these lenses quite live up to the hype, but of the three, the MK II is easily the best. Sharpest, best color rendition, maybe not the best bokeh, but very neutral and with extremely good IS on top of it all. No brainer, IMO.

The MK II is $2,200 new and worth it. If you can find the MK I for $1,100 new, though, I can't say that's a bad deal either.

But in my experience it's not half the price at all and if you really want to save money, wait for a refurb to overlap with a refurb sale... you can get the lens for $1,600 or so, which is a steal.

 

[jhpeterson]

I had a Mk I for about three years and was never really impressed. It seemed to be a little less sharp than either of the two non-IS models I'd owned previously. However, the biggest problem was light falloff throughout the zoom range, not just at the short end. I sent it back to Canon three times for a fix and and it never seemed to get better.
I can't say I had much luck with teleconverters either. I would occasionally use it with a 1.4x EF II when I didn't want to carry my 300 and I would almost always regret my choice. And, the one time I matched it with 2x EF (II), it was such a bad fit that I don't think I got a single sharp shot.
In the last 20+ years, I've had nine Canon zooms in this range of focal lengths, starting with the 80-200/2.8. The IS Mk I was definitely the worst. Maybe I just had a bad copy, but I'm not the only one, as I've talked with others who had similar issues.
The newer version seems better on all counts, greater sharpness, especially wide open, particularly at the long and short ends. There's still some light falloff in the corners, but it's noticeably less. And, it gives reasonably sharp results with my converters, especially the 2x EF III. The images are still no match for what I take with my 300, but they're usable for most everything my clients require. In my book, the Mk II is well worth the premium over the earlier model.

 

[JoeKerslake]

I bit the bullet and picked up a MKII for £1200 (1800USD). Pretty excited to start using it!

 

[Finn M]

I had a Mk I for about three years and was never really impressed. It seemed to be a little less sharp than either of the two non-IS models I'd owned previously. However, the biggest problem was light falloff throughout the zoom range, not just at the short end. I sent it back to Canon three times for a fix and and it never seemed to get better.
I can't say I had much luck with teleconverters either. I would occasionally use it with a 1.4x EF II when I didn't want to carry my 300 and I would almost always regret my choice. And, the one time I matched it with 2x EF (II), it was such a bad fit that I don't think I got a single sharp shot.
In the last 20+ years, I've had nine Canon zooms in this range of focal lengths, starting with the 80-200/2.8. The IS Mk I was definitely the worst. Maybe I just had a bad copy, but I'm not the only one, as I've talked with others who had similar issues.
The newer version seems better on all counts, greater sharpness, especially wide open, particularly at the long and short ends. There's still some light falloff in the corners, but it's noticeably less. And, it gives reasonably sharp results with my converters, especially the 2x EF III. The images are still no match for what I take with my 300, but they're usable for most everything my clients require. In my book, the Mk II is well worth the premium over the earlier model.

By light falloff you mean vignetting (darker corners)? This is no issue even on f2,8 since the small amount is easy to auto correct in the RAW converter in Photoshop.

I have over the years had at least 6-7 different samples of the 70-200/2,8L IS in my camera bag, some just for short time, others for some longer. I have never experiences any issues with this lens. It was my big favourite inntil I bought the mk.II.
The mk.I is a very good lens, but the mk.II is outstanding. It is simply Canons sharpest zoom lens, and it outperforms almost all fixed lenses in the same range.
The difference? The mk.I has two weaknesses: soft outside the centre image on f2,8 and 200mm, and big problems with lens flare in backlit situations. The mk.II is very sharp even on f2,8 while the mk.I gains on stepping down to f4 especially on 200mm. The IS is also much better on the mk.II