70-200 USM or USM II?

[P3 Photography]

Hi, I am now useing a 24-105L 4.0 and I love it but am looking to upgrade to a 70-200L 2.8 is. I am torn between the mkI and the mkII? Can anyone tell me what the dif is? I am still learning all the tech side of photography... I shoot babies, kids, families, seniors and some weddings. Thanks in advance

 

[Derrel]

The Mark II is actually sharp at the longer end of its range...the earlier f/2.8 USM model is not as sharp as one might want at its longer end. I have one. When doing landscape photos a few years back, I was shooting some budding trees in the spring, in beautiful side-lighting. My shots at the upper end of the focal length range, above 135mm, looked like I had accidentally set the RAW + JPEG setting to Medium or Low compression...I just wasn't seeing the detail I'm used to...when I zoomed it I thought, "That's *it*? There's nothing hiding in there?" As this review points out, the first-generation IS model is not as good optically as the f/4 IS lens is. Also, the first generation model does only "so-so" with a converter added; the Mark II version, just like Nikon's new 70-200 VR-II lens, performs what one would call "exceptionally well" with the 1.4x converter. Better matching of the new lens with the converter is what Canon has achieved, as well as better resolving power above 135mm. Read technical reviews and the issue of this lens's optics comes up quite often. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis