Questions about Canon's 70-200

grimace

I've been looking to buy the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for some time but I now have some questions.

I want to be able to improve on low light situations like indoor sports, night time sports, weddings, concerts, etc. Currently, I'm using my Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS so 90% of the time I'm shooting at 5.6.

Since I started looking at the 70-200, Canon came out with a Mark II version of the lens.

I spoke to a good friend of mine and he said the rumor on the 2.8 is the image is soft at 2.8 and most photographers end up going up to 4.0.

So, here's my questions............

1) Is there that much of a difference between the 2.8 and the 2.8 II to justify the $400 difference?

2a) Do any of you find the 70-200 2.8 to be 'soft'?

2b) If you find the 2.8 setting soft then why not go to 70-200mm f/4.0L IS and save nearly $700 on the 2.8 and over $1,000 on the 2.8 II



B&H Prices

• Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II......$2299
• Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.........$1899
• Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L IS.........$1210

<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

Andy

I find it incredibly sharp at f/2.8 and I sold my mark I to get the mark II as soon as it came out. The Mark I was no slouch, either. I'll have this lens a long, long time.

20DNoob

This happens every time something is updated.

Two months ago the MkI kicked a**, now it is a**.

For working pros that keep the roof over their families heads and food on the table they've gotta do whatever they have to keep it that way, updating gear is part of that.

For the hobbyist/gear whore it's more bragging rights the way I see it.

J.M.O.

Edit: BTW, IS isn't really going to be doing much of anything for you for sports unless say panning. A faster shutter speed is what you'll be needing, I'd think the same for concerts as musicians tend to move about a bit while performing. Weddings it might help a little, but from what I've read from a fair amount of wedding shooters is the fondness for fast primes over zooms. I'd put the money towards a newer body with better high ISO performance.

rwells

All I can tell you is that my 70-200L f/2.8 IS ver1 is sharp at f/2.8. That's where I shoot it 99% of the time.

grimace

Thank guys for your feedback. I looks like I'll be going the 2.8 route.

kdog

Get the MKII. It's better, and you will never be able to upgrade to it again for that price.

JimKarczewski

MkII has a flouride (I believe that's what it is..) Element. In the past, those elements were reserved for the big whites (300/2.8, 400/2.8, etc) but canon has added them to the line now for the 70-200. Image quality is supposedly much better on the MkII. If I could afford it anytime soon, I'll be upgrading.

Photo comparisons of MkI vs MkII

http://www.prophotoshow.net/blog/2010/03/12/canon-70-200-2-8-is-2-review-v1-v2-compared/

GadgetRick

If you have the funds, go for the MkII. If you don't, you won't be disappointed in the IQ of the MkI. Very sharp at f2.8--even sharper at f4.