Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

photodad1

I am currently using the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Non-IS with a Canon 7D. I shoot mostly sports such as football, baseball, basketball and Volleyball. I am looking to upgrade to the new Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Is the new lenses worth the extra money?

ziggy53

I think you would be more impressed by the upgrade if you used a FF or crop 1.3x/APS-H body like the 1D MKIV. Most of the image improvements are at the edges and corners of the full frame. I gather the latest model is also somewhat improved in stabilization (some claim a 2/3rd-1 stop improvement) and potentially improved AF speed (although the MK I is no slouch for AF speed.) The newest version of the 1.4x teleconverter (MK III) is also improved optically used with the latest lens.

For a 7D host I just don't think you will see that much difference. If you "need" a slight edge in performance and a slight improvement in image quality, it is better.

You can always rent a copy to see if it's worthwhile for your application.

Dan7312

The mkII IS has two kinds of stabilization. One for when you are holding the camera still and another for when you are panning.

ziggy53 wrote: »

I think you would be more impressed by the upgrade if you used a FF or crop 1.3x/APS-H body like the 1D MKIV. Most of the image improvements are at the edges and corners of the full frame. I gather the latest model is also somewhat improved in stabilization (some claim a 2/3rd-1 stop improvement) and potentially improved AF speed (although the MK I is no slouch for AF speed.) The newest version of the 1.4x teleconverter (MK III) is also improved optically used with the latest lens.

For a 7D host I just don't think you will see that much difference. If you "need" a slight edge in performance and a slight improvement in image quality, it is better.

You can always rent a copy to see if it's worthwhile for your application.

kdog

Dan7312 wrote: »

The mkII IS has two kinds of stabilization. One for when you are holding the camera still and another for when you are panning.

So did version 1 of this lens.

ThatCanonGuy

If your budget allows, I'd say go for it. From the photos I've seen, the 70-200 Mark II is really, really sharp. It makes the mk1 look soft (even though it's a great lens). The mk2 looks to be about as sharp as the 135L - one of Canon's best primes. There may be improvements in the corners (I'm sure there are), but I think the extra sharpness alone is worth the upgrade.

I second Ziggy about renting one. Or, if you're a CPS member, you can try one for free

Manfr3d

I owned the 70-200 2.8 L non-IS and now own the II IS.

The 70-200 II is certainly an improvement over the 70-200 2.8 L non-IS.
But for sports you probably don't need the IS or weather sealing. The non IS
is the 2nd sharpest 70-200 2.8 zoom from Canon and I doubt that the
improvement is worth the upgrade (unless you print really really big).

If I was you I'd rather add a 85 1.8 and a 135 2.0 or save up for a 300 2.8.

photodad1

Thanks everyone!

pmaxwell

maybe this will help.
Canon rebates

$300 rebate started 11/27/11 and runs through 1/7/12. Prices are as low as I've seen them in a long time.