Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS vs. Canon 70-200mm IS II

[dericcainphoto]

Does anyone have experience with both of these lenses? I am in the market to purchase one soon and I was wondering if the updated version is worth the extra money. Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

I do believe there are a few members around here who have experience with both...certainly a few who use the new version.

I own the old version and haven't had a chance to try the new one yet. From what I've gathered, the new version has improved sharpness...or maybe it's better to say that it has an improved ability to render find detail. This is getting to be fairly important because of the high megapixels cameras and their high density sensors.

So part of the equation it to ask what camera(s) you are using. With an older camera, it may not be as much as a difference as with a newer, higher MP body.

 

[Overread]

I've owned and used both of these lenses; I'll start out by saying that the original was, and still is, a top range lens. So much so that when the stock of the original ran out its second hand price jumped up to equal its price brand new. So its certainly a good performer and more than capable of doing pro grade work.

The new lens is also better through its whole focal range, though especially at the f2.8 end and also at the 200mm end (essentially its limits of wide open aperture and of its focal length). Even on an older camera body like the 400D one can see the difference between the two lenses.

In my case I made the upgrade because I often use mine with teleconverters and the MII made a big enough jump in quality that it could take the 2*TCs and remain usable as a 140-400mm lens (in line with the 100-400mm in terms of optical quality) something that the original could never stand up to with a 2*TC. In essence I was fully admitting that I'm pushing the lens right to its limits and so the optical upgrade made a much bigger difference to my shooting and what I could do with the lens.
For the 70-200mm range, myself, I found no problems at all with the original.


Weight and size the two are mostly identical - the new is a hair lighter and had some refinements to its rubber grips on the zoom and focus wheels as well as a more sturdy hood design.


Now comes the tricky part, deciding if the lens is right for you - if you are using it in the 70-200mm capacity only then either one can do pro work, there is no problem there. If you can afford the MII I'd say go for it, whilst if you can't stretch your budget that far you can rest easy knowing that you still have a top of the range lens. You might well want to see if you can find a local shop or camera club just to try both of them out as you can then see how the improved optics fair for yourself - giving you a real world appreciation for, what is in words, rather a vague description.

 

[dericcainphoto]

I have the original 70-200mm rented for the weekend and I will plan on renting the updated version the next time that I rent. As far as cameras, I have the 50D and 7D and I will try it on both of them to see what the differences are there. Thanks for the insight and help. I am leaning towards getting the updated version at this point. We shall see...

 

[badge]

i just bought the original 2.8 and its back ordered....i bought it on the 5th and i won't have it until the 28th

 

[jimbotexas]

A photo buddy of mine has the II and I still have the original. We sometimes wind up shooting side-by-side at different events. I am convinced I must get the II, without a doubt! Wide-open aperture shots are the big difference with much more clarity on the II.

 

[LF911SC]

I've owned both, the newer model is a definite improvement over the original.