70-200mm f/2.8 IS I or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II????

[coledphoto]

Should I get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I or IS II?? I don't have either yet, and I'm trying to figure out if the IS II's extra price is justifiable. I am mainly shooting portraits. Thank you guys so much! Please also leave reasons to support your opinion

 

[DB_Cro]

I've read a few times that the 2.8 IS is the worst of the bunch (all f/2.8 and f/4 versions).
Do you really need IS for portraits?

If you can afford the IS II, you'll be buying the best lens in existence in that particular range so..

I loved the F/4 IS better then the F/2.8 non-IS for the few portraits that I did, not because of
IS, not because of 2.8 vs 4.. it was just.. sharper and better looking (apart from bokeh).

I ended up buying the Sigma because I often need IS and I couldn't afford the Canon IS II.
I'm sure I didn't help at all.

 

[Derrel]

I shot the f/2.8 IS model one for a while on Canon FF and Canon 1.6x...pretty good lens! I have mine for sale in the forum here. I tend to shoot at f/5.6 or f/6.3 or f/7.1, often with studio type flash, and at those f/stops, almost any good pro-grade lens is very solid optically. As I understand it, the Mark II model's biggest claim to fame is slightly higher sharpness at the longer end of the zoom range. While that's nice and all, today, we add sharpening in processing to a huge degree...boost the sharpening,m maybe goose the clarity a bit, and BOOM! Things look plenty sharp with any modern, pro-grade lens.