# Which 70-200?



## KreutzerPhotography (Apr 12, 2012)

I currently have a 70-200 f/4 is and am looking to upgrade... The wedding season is right around the bend...

I am looking at a 70-200 2.8 is on Craigs List for like 1300 or a NEW 70-200 2.8 IS II...

the NEW lens costs almost double therefore I would have to wait almost a year to buy it.

Should I wait for the II next year or upgrade to the I before the season starts?


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 12, 2012)

You could sell your 70-200 and save the money from the 2.8 version and buy the 2.8is. If that's not an option, I say pick up the one on craigslist (given that it is in good shape and has no problems). You can sell it later at little to no loss.


----------



## Physicx (Apr 12, 2012)

A word of caution. The mark 1 is is less sharp than the non is. That's why the mark ii was released. So do not buy that on the market


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2012)

I picked up a f/2.8 non-is version a couple of weeks back from Craigslist for $350. Owner even had the B&H receipt from about 1998. It had set in its box most of the time and not used at all since 2005.

I had one a few years back as well as several mk I IS versions and two of the MK II vesions. That old non-IS lens is very sharp, not as good as the MK II version, but noticibly better than the MK I IS version.

However, since you want to use it for indoor weddings, and likely handheld, you will need flash or a unusually steady hand. 

Outside, I crank up the shutter speed so its no issue. I was using it today, and forgot that it was non-IS. I held the shutter button halfway down and waited for things to stabilize. They did not, so I looked to make sure IS was turned on, and then realized which lens I was using. I then cranked the shutter speed up and the images were sharp.

I'll likely sell it and get another MK II IS version. Now that I have a 5D MK III, I'm not as concerned about higher ISO settings in low light. Usinf f/2.8 in low light with my 5D MK II was marginal, but another stop would work out fine. 

I might also look at the Sigma 50-150mm OS, but I am not a Sigma fan to say the least, so it would have to be pretty special to convince me. I do like the focal range though, dropping to 50mm would be nice. It might even be a walk around lens.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Apr 12, 2012)

I havnt had time to play with the 2.8IS... And the rental company by me only caries the II. Does anyone have any experience with both the 2.8I and the f/4 IS models? 

Would I be underwhelmed with the 2.8 over the 4 that I already own?

I figured the 2.8IS I couldnt be THAT bad since it was such a renound lens in it s hayday.


----------



## mdm041 (Apr 13, 2012)

I'd hold out for the 2.8IS II. I did and have not regretted it for a second.


----------



## facedodge (Apr 13, 2012)

Just buy the Mark 2 now and worry about paying for it later.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> I havnt had time to play with the 2.8IS... And the rental company by me only caries the II. Does anyone have any experience with both the 2.8I and the f/4 IS models?
> 
> Would I be underwhelmed with the 2.8 over the 4 that I already own?
> 
> I figured the 2.8IS I couldnt be THAT bad since it was such a renound lens in it s hayday.


 
The f/2.8 IS was a workhorse lens and many were happy with it except at 200mm, where it was weak. If you use flashes at the wedding. the f/4 lens will work. without flash, you may come up short of light. Make sure you have a wide aperture prime to fall back on in any event.


----------



## gerga (Apr 14, 2012)

I'd concur about waiting for the Mk II 2.8 IS if that was a possibility, but from what you say that mightn't be the case. I own the Mk I from some years ago, and while it's a very nice piece of glass, the Mk II does beat it for sharpness - there are some nice comparisons between the mk I & II around on the net: if you feel you could handle the level of sharpness and abberation offered by the mk I, and really need something now, consider going with a used IS mk I. The wider aperture and IS can be quite handy for candid and portrait shooting, etc.


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2012)

I'd go for the MkII straight away. It's funny how the world works. I've found time and time again if I back myself in a capex purchase for the business, my income increases. That's why I buy 1 series bodies, buy the best L glass available and drive new cars. Sounds weird but it works.

With a 70-200 f/2.8isII in your kit straight away you'll probably take better wedding images. That usually means more business. You have only got to pick up ONE extra wedding and you've more than covered the upgrade cost of your lens. In the meantime you have an extra 12 months using a lens you always wanted and will inevitably love.

Paul Wright


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 14, 2012)

pwp said:


> I'd go for the MkII straight away. It's funny how the world works. I've found time and time again if I back myself in a capex purchase for the business, my income increases. That's why I buy 1 series bodies, buy the best L glass available and drive new cars. Sounds weird but it works.
> 
> With a 70-200 f/2.8isII in your kit straight away you'll probably take better wedding images. That usually means more business. You have only got to pick up ONE extra wedding and you've more than covered the upgrade cost of your lens. In the meantime you have an extra 12 months using a lens you always wanted and will inevitably love.
> 
> Paul Wright




+1 Exactly the truth.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 14, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go for the MkII straight away. It's funny how the world works. I've found time and time again if I back myself in a capex purchase for the business, my income increases. That's why I buy 1 series bodies, buy the best L glass available and drive new cars. Sounds weird but it works.
> ...



I am really pleased with my decision to move to the 70-200 f/2.8 II

I use it most of the time as a candid portrait lens and occasional sports


----------



## rocketdesigner (Apr 14, 2012)

I am facing the same decision.

I am leaning to the II version, but the cost is indeed frightening.

However, keep in mind that - when in stock - the II can be had for 2k at the refurb shop:

http://bit.ly/ijIOwy

And, wait to the end of the year and hope that Canon does what they did this past year (great mark down on the retail cost) ... I believe in some places a new II could be had for 2k as well.


----------



## Jakontil (Apr 18, 2012)

Undoubtedly go for the MKII version... Used a friend's and took me second to decide to grab a copy myself


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 18, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> I currently have a 70-200 f/4 is and am looking to upgrade... The wedding season is right around the bend...
> I am looking at a 70-200 2.8 is on Craigs List for like 1300 or a NEW 70-200 2.8 IS II...
> the NEW lens costs almost double therefore I would have to wait almost a year to buy it.
> Should I wait for the II next year or upgrade to the I before the season starts?



Find a refurbished 70-200 2.8 IS II if you can to bring down the price. Canon sells them on its online store. They have coupons as well occasionally but they are hard to find. If you buy that lens, you will never want another. It will last you years. If you pick up the older 2.8, you will always be wanting the IS. Not to mention the sharpness of the version II is out of this world compared to anything else. If you already have the f/4, i'd wait until you can get the 2.8 IS II


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Apr 18, 2012)

to my mind the 70-200 f/2,8 non-IS version is a bit overrated, it's very good but not stellar. However, it has a very decent bokeh. Except for the bokeh it doesn't go any better than the 70-200 f/2,8 II.


----------



## Razor2012 (Apr 18, 2012)

Agree with the comments for the MKII. I'm buying new gear and the first one I'm going to get is the 70-200II, and maybe the 24-70II.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 19, 2012)

I upgraded to MK2 from MK1 when MK2 just released because my friend's F4 IS was sharper than my F2.8 IS MK1. I really love my MK2. It's almost perfect for any environment. The only complain for me is the weight.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Apr 19, 2012)

I dont think that weight is going to be a problem. I normally have a pretty heavy kit. 2 bodies with grips 16-35 and 430exii and the other with 70-200 and 580exii. So it couldnt be too bad. 

I may beg and pleade with my wife to get the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Just gotta get it all figured out...


----------



## vuilang (Apr 20, 2012)

just saved for the II.. 
buy&sell will only get you more things to do (and possibly headache)


----------



## re:k photographie (Apr 21, 2012)

I could not be more happy with the IQ of my 70-200 f2.8 IS, especially for the $1400 I paid for it used.

I will admit however that I have kept my head buried in the sand by not renting a mkII for a side by side comparison. L glass envy is a terrible disease indeed.


----------



## jabbott (Apr 21, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > With a 70-200 f/2.8isII in your kit straight away you'll probably take better wedding images. That usually means more business. You have only got to pick up ONE extra wedding and you've more than covered the upgrade cost of your lens. In the meantime you have an extra 12 months using a lens you always wanted and will inevitably love.
> ...


I have a 70-200 f/2.8L II and have to agree that it can take absolutely stunning photos. I brought it to our friends' wedding and got a photo of them smiling right after the ceremony, and IMO the photo looked much better than anything their wedding photographer captured that day... and I'm just a photo enthusiast, not a pro.

FWIW, I've messed around with the 70-200 f/4L and the blue color rendition seemed really off to me. I do like the weight savings though and am still considering getting one or the 70-300L for long hikes.


----------

