What is the difference between these two lenses?

[SNBniko]

70-200mm, f/2.8L, IS II, USM

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

70-200mm, f/2.8L, IS, USM

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

and the big question is: is it worth the $500 difference?

Thanks!!

 

[Robin Usagani]

Yes unless you buy the first generation used then the difference is a lot larger than $500. You shouldnt buy first generation new.

 

[SNBniko]

Oh, well. That does make more sense. I've already haggled with the local camera shop if they'll sell me their rent-a-lenses when they upgrade to the second generation.

Okay, let me reword my question. Is there a big difference between the quality of these two lenses that would make buying the second generation a better investment?

 

[Robin Usagani]

Im not sure but all I can tell you is I am happy with the first generation. I bought mine locally for $1300 a few months ago and that was one heck of a deal.

 

[Cfitz]

I think there is actually a difference in image quality. The IS II is sharper than the IS but I think that's it. And remember also that IS II gives you a 4 stop improvement whereas IS only gives a 3 stop improvement.

 

[Stryker]

You have to be at f/4 to have a crisp and clear output if using the 1st generation. The 2nd gen gives you clear shots even at f/2.8. If you plan to get the 1st gen, get the f/4 IS USM. Its cheaper, crisp and clear at f/4, lighter in weight, and cheaper. The 2nd gen is by far the best Canon lens ever made.

 

[Rohnald]

You see the chart

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

 

[Robin Usagani]

That chart is useless without legends lol.

 

[Overread]

The 1st generation was THE choice lens for professionals needing a fast f2.8 lens in the 70-200mm range when they wanted/needed a zoom. It has many years of good pro use and whilst it had some slight drawbacks (it was never at its best wide open at f2.8) it was a very solid performer and certainly a very good choice.

The 2nd generation is a full upgrade of the original and you can see the difference (esp at f2.8 at 200mm) in image quality. It has set a new benchmark for itself in that respect. However it also improved the IS (from original 2 stop to a new 4 stop which is also a lot quieter) and also has a slightly closer minimum focusing distance.


Personally I used both lenses and upgraded from one to the other BUT (and this is quite a big but) I was doing so because I was also using teleconverters and pushing the zooms beyond their normal working distances - up to 400mm. This was a massive difference between the original and new version of the lens. Had I been only using the 1.4TC or using the lens bare I suspect I would still have the original and would not have ugpraded.

In the end my view is that either one is a good solid choice - the newer is better, but many consider that its price point is still very high when compared to the originals. If you can afford it the M2 is a fantastic lens to go for - however if you can't the original is still a solid great performer which is still pro standard.

 

[Hardrock]

I owned the mki and it was a good lens at f4 but f2.8 for me was not very good at 135-200. So if I was in your position I would definitely get the mkii if you can afford it. If not go for the 70-200 f4 IS. Like I said I was very disappointed with the mki at f2.8. Granted I used it on a 50D and maybe the lens would have been better on a full frame?

 

[MohaimenK]

Here is a shot from yesterday with the IS II version both shot at 2.8

I don't know why but I'm getting some soft images sometimes and tack sharp on some. I am 100% positive it's not from camera shake. Shot at f2.8 at 1/500 ISO 160 at 155mm I hear slight grind when it focuses sometimes. Not sure what to make of it to be honest.

100% crop

and this is the other photo which is very sharp. So not sure what to make of it.

3. looks much sharper here. - this is f/2.8 at ISO 200 at 1/250 at 115MM

 

[Overread]

Are you letting the IS speed up before pressing the shutter button? Sometimes if you press down on the shutter too fast, ie before the IS has speed up, it will soften your photo. This is one reason some people (sports togs) actually shoot with the IS off so that they can hammer the shutter without having to wait for the IS to speed up.

As for grinding sounds I've sometimes heard them when holding the camera at a certain angle or when moving it with the IS running, but it should still be quiet and not a constant grinding sound - if it is you might have a problem with the IS motor?


Also whilst I'm not used to 5DM2 shots that 100% looks soft to me.

 

[MohaimenK]

Overread. Yes I use the IS on most of the time. I didn't think of that. I will test this out Overread. It's usually grinding at certain angle that's for sure. Not always.

As for issues w/ the lens. I once dropped it off the camera, long story. But Was no physical damage (thank God!) so Canon fixed it for me free of charge. They said the auto focusing ring came loose. I'll have to test a few shots to see if it's a constant issue. I'll slow down before pressing the shutter a little and report the result.

 

[DerekSalem]

Oh, well. That does make more sense. I've already haggled with the local camera shop if they'll sell me their rent-a-lenses when they upgrade to the second generation.

Okay, let me reword my question. Is there a big difference between the quality of these two lenses that would make buying the second generation a better investment?

Actually quite a *MASSIVE* difference in IQ. The other big difference is IS. The Mark II has some of the best IS Canon offers (best I can think of) and some of the best IQ in any of their telephotos. Having used both lenses the mark II is *MUCH* better