5D2 and 70-200 2.8 IS I or II

jgoetz4

Morning Folks,
I have an opportunity to buy the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I lens for a very good price (under $1300 shipped) Knowing the II version is around $1900 (used) is there that much of a difference in iq that I would notice in a 13 x 19'' print, taken with my 5D2 ? I'm not talking about pixel peeping on a monitor, but a real physical print that hangs on a wall. I have a hard time justifying the price difference for something that's newer, but not necessarily better. Thanks for looking :thumb
Have a good day
Jim...

pathfinder

Jim, you will get lots of different opinions about this, but I own both lenses, and the vI was always thought to be a superlative piece of glass until the advent of v2.

If you do your part with the earlier vI, steady camera hold or tripod, fast or at least appropriate shutter speed for focal length, you can make lovely 16 x 24 prints with that lens. And I doubt one person in a hundred could tell which lens was used. I have dozens of 13x19 in prints from Tamron 28-300 and Tamron 200-500 lenses that are quite sharp, and no one has ever suggested I needed to use a better lens for the image.

Like you I tend t be a pragmatist, and know that most lenses failures are those of the cameraman, not the lens.

With the advent of Lens Profile corrections in Lightroom 4, and other software, even lenses like my Tamron travel zoom 28-300 can take quite nice images with appropriate choice of apertures and shutter speeds. I tend to shoot at less than wide open with my Tamron travel zoom, the the Canon version I 70-200 f2.8 IS L will do just fine at f2.8, and even better at f5.6.

Canon's 200mm f2.8 L prime is pretty darn fine as well, and is substantially cheaper if you just want 200mm.

This was shot with an original 5D, and a vI 70-200 f2.8 IS L at f3.5



This is the same 5D, with the 70-200 vI at 125mm at f3.2

jgoetz4

5D2 and 70-200 2.8 IS I or II

pathfinder wrote: »

Jim, you will get lots of different opinions about this, but I own both lenses, and the vI was always thought to be a superlative piece of glass until the advent of v2.

If you do your part with the earlier vI, steady camera hold or tripod, fast or at least appropriate shutter speed for focal length, you can make lovely 16 x 24 prints with that lens. And I doubt one person in a hundred could tell which lens was used. I have dozens of 13x19 in prints from Tamron 28-300 and Tamron 200-500 lenses that are quite sharp, and no one has ever suggested I needed to use a better lens for the image.

Like you I tend t be a pragmatist, and know that most lenses failures are those of the cameraman, not the lens.

With the advent of Lens Profile corrections in Lightroom 4, and other software, even lenses like my Tamron travel zoom 28-300 can take quite nice images with appropriate choice of apertures and shutter speeds. I tend to shoot at less than wide open with my Tamron travel zoom, the the Canon version I 70-200 f2.8 IS L will do just fine at f2.8, and even better at f5.6.

Canon's 200mm f2.8 L prime is pretty darn fine as well, and is substantially cheaper if you just want 200mm.

This was shot with an original 5D, and a vI 70-200 f2.8 IS L at f3.5

Good Afternoon Pathfinder,
Thanks for your comments For $1275, I didn't think I could go wrong. 13'' x 19'' are usually my largest prints for both myself and clients, and if the iq difference is marginal at best, I'll save the $600, give or take, and put it towards something else. Nice detail on the horse. Thanks again.
Have a good day
Jim...

pathfinder

Those were shot at large aperture, here is one I found via Lightroom's filters, shot at f8 on a tripod with a 5DMKII , which of course, is even sharper.

rwells

If you get a really good copy of the ver1 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I don't think that you'll be dissapointed in the sharpness one bit. I never have been. Another vote for the ver1 over ver2 is that ver1 has smoother bokeh. That's important to me as I usually shoot it wide open.

YMMV

jgoetz4

rwells wrote: »

If you get a really good copy of the ver1 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I don't think that you'll be dissapointed in the sharpness one bit. I never have been. Another vote for the ver1 over ver2 is that ver1 has smoother bokeh. That's important to me as I usually shoot it wide open.

YMMV

Good Morning Randy,
Thanks for your comments Unfortunately, the seller changed her mind so I'm looking at a 200 2.8 II for under $600. I have the 70-200 4.0 to cover the medium telephoto range anyway, but a 2.8 at the long end is something I'll probably be using a bit more of as spring and summer approach. Thanks again.
Have a good day
Jim...

Brett1000

jgoetz4 wrote: »

Good Morning Randy,
Thanks for your comments Unfortunately, the seller changed her mind so I'm looking at a 200 2.8 II for under $600. I have the 70-200 4.0 to cover the medium telephoto range anyway, but a 2.8 at the long end is something I'll probably be using a bit more of as spring and summer approach. Thanks again.
Have a good day
Jim...

the 200mm 2.8 is good, the zoom more versatile