# 70-200 F2.8 mark I or mark II?!



## sgshum (Nov 22, 2012)

Hi guys,

I know this topic probably came up a bunch of times...I'm looking for a 70-200 F2.8 lens.
I've looked at the tamron, sigma and the canon mark i and mark ii...but I cant decide which one!
Anyone have experience with the Sigma and the Canon 70-200 mark i and mark ii that can compare the quality and image quality?!?

Thanks!

BTW I'm shooting with the 5D mark III


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 22, 2012)

To save yourself from return and exchange - get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II while Canon Rebates still last.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2012)

I agree get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. If in doubt check the lenses you mentioned in photozone.de.


----------



## Sony (Nov 22, 2012)

5DMKiii and 70-200mm MKii are the same generation; 70-200mm MKi is 1 generation older.
I have 5Diii and MKi. Just bought MKii with Canon's rebate: it's different.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 5, 2013)

I have Canon EF 70-200 mm 2.8L IS II USM and really like results which can be achieved by using this lens. Before bying it i read a lot of info about I generation lens as well as third party providers. I am not professional photographer, however, based on all info that I read it seems that my current lens is the best that could be bought fot money at the moment


----------



## cliffwang (Jan 5, 2013)

I had two 70-200 MK1 lenses and have the 70-200 MK2. I can tell you MK2 is MUCH better than MK1.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jan 6, 2013)

+1 more vote for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II


----------



## Pixelsign (Jan 6, 2013)

the new tamron 70-200 with VC (IS) should be a great lens too. but the canon 70-200 mkII is the unquestionable king of them all  .


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 6, 2013)

Pixelsign said:


> the new tamron 70-200 with VC (IS) should be a great lens too. but the canon 70-200 mkII is the unquestionable king of them all  .


Yes, worth looking into the Tamron version if you want to save money on the mark ii but still get almost as good quality.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 6, 2013)

Well of course the mk2 is wayway better in every aspect and not just a tad. But if you're like me it's a lens I hardly ever used and therefor completely stupid to pay that price for.. However I just the other day picked up a 70-200 2.8 non-is for $350 and then it suddenly is a super bargain an totally worth to own, even if I use it no more than twice a year..

Never missed the mk1 or the mk2 when I sold them..


----------



## Atonegro (Jan 6, 2013)

The 2.8-IS mark1 is the worst 70-200 lens Canon has ever made, it is not sharp, and I tried over 20 copies.
So I have been using my non-IS version, witch is much better.
Only recently I bought a mark2 version, and that is an excelent lens, but that comes at a price.
The Tamron seems to be a very good lens too, not as good as the mark2, but better than the other two.
I can not say for myself, because I never worked with the Tamron.

So, if money is an issue, buy the non IS, great money for value.
If you want IS, buy the Tamron.
If you want the best, buy the mark2.

And you also can consider the F4 versions....


----------



## Pyrenees (Jan 6, 2013)

As indicated above, the 70-200 f/2.8 II is far superior, as virtually every review out there will indicate. Significant difference in resolution quality, amongst other things (e.g. bokeh quality). Regarded as one of Canon's greatest lenses.

Yes, pricing is quite steep, and if this is an issue you should consider the 70-200 f/4L IS if the 1-stop difference is acceptable to you. The f/4L is optically superior to the f/2.8L I, and many would argue that it is not far behind the f/2.8L mark II.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 6, 2013)

Definitely the Mark II. Had the chance to compare pics taken with the IS MkI at the same location at the same time with those I had taken with the IS Mk II. Both on 7D and the IQ difference was very visible...


----------



## vmk (Jan 6, 2013)

70-200 f2.8 IS II


----------



## rs (Jan 6, 2013)

Having owned the 70-200/2.8 I and the 70-200/2.8 II, and used both on a 40D and 5D mk II, the difference between the two lenses is like night and day.

The mk I, when stopped down to f4 produces quite nice results. The colours and contrast are very nice, but the sharpness isn't fully there. At f2.8 and viewed at 100%, it always has a very ugly softness to it. The mk II however just nails it every time - you only gain DoF by stopping down - the sharpness is simply stunning wide open throughout the zoom range. The IS is better too. I'm unaware of any aspect of the mk I being better than mk II.

I would strongly recommend against the mk I. If you are buying it to shoot at f4 and below, save yourself money, size and weight and get the 70-200/4 IS. According to test chart shots on TDP, it's sharper than the mk I at f4, and the IS is better (4 stops vs 3 stops). It also means if you're ever shooting in Tv, it can't open up to a poor performing aperture. If you want to shoot at f2.8, there is no substitute for the mk II.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Jan 6, 2013)

Another vote here for the 70-200 IS USM II

I just bought one the other day to accompany my mkiii after much debate between the Tamron and this, and believe me when I tell you, this lens is amazing. I had been shooting with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, (great lens) but my pictures took a crazy jump in every single aspect. I was definitely worried at first about the price vs performance part, but let me tell you, I am no longer worried and am glad to have invested my money in such a great lens. To quote a friend of mine, "If you don't have this lens, don't buy any other lens until you get it."


----------



## Robert Welch (Jan 6, 2013)

I find it interesting how many people sang the praises of the mkI for many years, calling it one of Canon's great lenses...then suddenly it's a dog when the mkII comes out. Did the lens change? Or our perception of it? Obviously the latter. Certainly the mkII is the better lens, all sources indicate to. The question is, whether you have to spend the additional money for it, or would the mkI or Tamaron work satisfactorily for your needs? Only you can decide. I have the mkI, I find it's satisfactory for most of what I need it for. I'm happy with images from 100mm to 200mm, at 70mm I seem to get less critical sharpness, though not unusable. Fortunately, I tend to use this lens more at the upper ranges, so this isn't a dire issue for me. I do like to stop down to f/3.5 when possible, but I don't shy from f/2.8 if needed, and can get satisfactory results. On portraits (what I mainly use it for) I get detail in eyelashes and such, so it serves it's function, and the bokeh is a wonderful creamy texture (I've heard the mkII is a bit more harsh in that feature). Would I like to have a mkII? Sure, sounds like it would be nice. Do I feel I NEED a mkII? Not necessarily, I'm able to produce completely acceptable and sellable (the last being the most important to me as I'm a full time professional) images with the mkI, so as a business decision it's better for me to just keep the mkI.

Should you get a mkI? If you want the most critically sharp lens, and money isn't an issue, then probably not. If you want a reasonably good performing lens, one that was widely accepted as a quality lens for over a decade when it was a current model, and can find a good copy at a decent price, it may meet your needs. That's for you to decide, don't let others opinions with no perspective on your needs be the only factor in your decision. Calculate you needs and make an educated decision from there.


----------



## sgshum (Jan 27, 2013)

It's been awhile and I saved up enough for the 70-200 mark II...so happy with the purchase.
Thanks to everyone for their input!


----------



## infared (Jan 28, 2013)

It's been awhile and I saved up enough for the 70-200 mark II...so happy with the purchase.
Thanks to everyone for their input!

Yes, that is a "WOW" lens...it is a stellar performer. Totally trumps the version I. Enjoy your photo making!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 30, 2013)

Honestly the 70-200 f/2.8 IS v1 is still an amazing lens and is super sharp. Yes, the Mark II is better, but there is nothing wrong with the v1 if you don't have the budget for the II.


----------



## Pixel (Jan 30, 2013)

EF 70-200 Vers I versus Vers II:

Night and Day.


----------



## rlarsen (Jan 30, 2013)

My Canon 70-200 2.8 IS version 1 is great. It's been a highly-regarded lens. The new one, as you are finding out gets rave reviews. It seems pretty strange to me that someone here reports trying 20 copies. Who does that ? 20 copies ?

Now that I'm shooting with a full-frame camera I would like to update my lenses to MK ll versions. Because my 70-200 is so good it will likely be the last one I replace. The new lenses sure are expensive.

If you don't need f2.8, the 70-200 f4 is a great lens. Much smaller.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2013)

Had all three of them several times, and it's absolutely no contest at aaall. the mk2 is completely superior in every regard, especially there it matters most, AF speed and accuracy and wide-open performance.


----------



## Studio1930 (Jan 30, 2013)

Glad to hear you got the Canon 70-200 v2. 

I have owned several copies of the v1 and one copy of the v2. One of my v1 lenses was sharp and the other just wasn't that great (both calibrated to the bodies via FoCal). My v2 lens is night and day better than either of my v1. I would agree that you have to be sure to get a good copy of the v1 lens but so far I have not heard people complain about quality copies of the v2.


----------

