Canon 70-200 2.8 MkI vs MkII

[IIIHobbs]

The recent rebate has me thinking I should take this opportunity to sell my 6 year old MkI 70-200 2.8 and get the new MkII. Recent online sales show a range of $1450-$1600 for a used MkI, that would put me at between $750-$900 out of pocket for the MkII.
Having recently picked up a 5DIII, I have been considering adding the 135 f2 (keeping the 70-200 MkI) but in many of the hands on reviews of the MkII have indicated that those with the 135 f2 use it much less often since getting the 70-200 MkII.
Does the MkII offer such better performance and quality over the MkI to warrant the $1000 investment?

 

[Loswr]

...I have been considering adding the 135 f2 (keeping the 70-200 MkI) but in many of the hands on reviews of the MkII have indicated that those with the 135 f2 use it much less often since getting the 70-200 MkII.
Does the MkII offer such better performance and quality over the MkI to warrant the $1000 investment?

I have both the 70-200 II and the 135L, although I got the prime after the zoom. I use the 135L for portraits and indoor sporting events where I want the extra stop, but the 70-200 II gets a lot more use.

From what I can tell, the original 70-200/2.8 IS was in the bottom two of the available 70-200 lenses; the Mk II is definitely at the top of the group.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The recent rebate has me thinking I should take this opportunity to sell my 6 year old MkI 70-200 2.8 and get the new MkII. Recent online sales show a range of $1450-$1600 for a used MkI, that would put me at between $750-$900 out of pocket for the MkII.
Having recently picked up a 5DIII, I have been considering adding the 135 f2 (keeping the 70-200 MkI) but in many of the hands on reviews of the MkII have indicated that those with the 135 f2 use it much less often since getting the 70-200 MkII.
Does the MkII offer such better performance and quality over the MkI to warrant the $1000 investment?

I've owned several of them, the original non-IS (2), the IS MK I (3) and the IS MK II (2). In terms of IQ, the IS MK I version is a distant third. Don't hesitate to get the MK II, but if its not good, be prepared to return it. There are reports of bad ones getting out.

 

[K-amps]

Does the MkII offer such better performance and quality over the MkI to warrant the $1000 investment?

You would think that it does not... but it does... the mk.ii can get some amazing shots, it does almost everything right... vibrant colors, high contrast, dreamy Bokeh and very sharp while at it.

 

[prestonpalmer]

The mark 2 is incredible. I purchased one when it first came out, and was so surprised by the IQ, focus speed and IS, that I immediately sold my V1 70-200 2.8 is usm.

If you are shooting with the 5D3. I HIGHLY recommend spending the extra money. And you will use it more than the 135.

 

[ksuweh]

The 70-200 II is definitely worth the investment! With you 5D III the 1-stop difference won't be needed or noticed, but the flexibility of the zoom WILL be appreciated! I love my 70-200 II!!

 

[bycostello]

the mk2 gives you an extra stop of latitude... so if you need low light then worth the money

 

[Jakontil]

You cant go wrong with the 70-200 II IS

 

[RunAndGun]

The v2 is worth it. I'm a TV photographer and I work side-by-side with a lot of still photogs (in professional motor sports). I had (still have) the v1 and asked a lot of them after the v2 came out if it was really worth upgrading and not a single one hesitated in saying "YES!". I bought it when B&H had it for $1974 in November. I threw it on my 5DMKII and just started playing with it in the house taking pics of my GF and dogs just to test it out, wide open and low shutter speeds and I was amazed at how dead-on the focus was and how freakin' sharp the pics were. I'm talking like 2.8, 200mm, 1/15, 3200 ISO and the pics were SHARP. In fact, I liked one so much that I ran it through DxO to clean it up(it was like 3200ISO) and printed it. This lens on my 5DMKIII is a bad @$$ combo. I can't wait to try it out when my girlfriends softball season starts up and see how they really handle.

 

[expo01]

The 70-200 2.8 L IS II is (in my humble opinion) the best 70-200 out there. It's optically better than the Sigma and Tamron, faster than ANY 70-200 (including 70-200 VRII) and a heck of an upgrade from the v1.

Maybe even the lock-in lenshood could be a worthwile reason to upgrade haha

Recently at the Ice Hockey Playoff-Finals i shot across the Arena in VERY low light at 200mm (+Crop from the 1D4) at 1/13th and 2.8! (i rested the Lens on the Rink) It was sharp, period.

 

[Aglet]

I've used the original non-IS, the IS v1 and now have the IS v 2 of this lens.
they're all decent but the latest IS II is wicked sharp with much better IS and contrast. AF is also pretty snappy but I don't do action work so can't comment on the improvement there.

Overall tho, I still prefer the older non-IS version for a nicer feel to my images, despite somewhat lower contrast and more flare prone. The IS II seems to have a little harsher bokeh than the other two (in transition areas) but I no longer have them all side by side to compare directly.

You'll likely be quite satisfied with the performance of the /2.8 IS II

 

[bp]

Get the II - totally worth it

I used to loooooove my 100L because it was so sharp. Now, I only pull it out for macro shots because the 70-200II is actually just as sharp (and yeah, I did side by sides). The mk1 is a great lens, but was soft.

 

[Orion]

I just used a mkIII and 70-200mkII combo on a wedding . . . . I rented the 70-200mkII, and I will purchase it for sure now! The Candid shots I got in the reception are great! And probably more than anything else, I love hoew the subjects are seperated from teh background!

I have never used to older version, though. I don't think it matters much which one you get, (unless 'better' IS is really all that more usefull for you) . . . and YES . . my arms ARE SORE!

 

[Dylan777]

The recent rebate has me thinking I should take this opportunity to sell my 6 year old MkI 70-200 2.8 and get the new MkII. Recent online sales show a range of $1450-$1600 for a used MkI, that would put me at between $750-$900 out of pocket for the MkII.
Having recently picked up a 5DIII, I have been considering adding the 135 f2 (keeping the 70-200 MkI) but in many of the hands on reviews of the MkII have indicated that those with the 135 f2 use it much less often since getting the 70-200 MkII.
Does the MkII offer such better performance and quality over the MkI to warrant the $1000 investment?

YES...the sharpness, contrast, and color of mrk II are worth it.

I bought it last x-mas, with Canon $300 rebate & $100 off from B&H - $400 instant saving. NO REGRET.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2262.msg48526#msg48526

 

[Razor2012]

I'm picking up my 5D MKIII tomorrow and hopefully I can swing a deal to get the 70-200II also. I'm pumped, then I can look at getting the 24-70II.

 

[Razor2012]

Ok this thing is fast and sharp, money well spent.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I never had the original, but the current one is amazing. Sharp ACROSS THE RANGE unlike your typical zoom lens which tends to have a "sweet spot" and another area where it's not so great.

If your budget allows, it's highly recommended.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Thanks for your comments everyone.

My MkI is now listed on eBay (with a bunch of others). :-\

 

[ksuweh]

Thanks for your comments everyone.

My MkI is now listed on eBay (with a bunch of others). :-\

;D LOL That is too funny!! Good choice though. I have played with the MkI & I own the MkII & there is a very noticeable difference!