# Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark I vs Mark II



## TeckKing (Oct 30, 2013)

I am in the market to buy a Canon 70-200mm and I am torn between the Mark I and the Mark II. I have researched both of them and the Mark II seems to be the better choice, but for $1000 CDN is the difference in performance worth it? If any of you guys have either of the lenses could you help me out?


----------



## docholliday (Oct 30, 2013)

I have had both lenses, now the v2...the v1 had what I considered to be better bokeh, but the v2 is sharper. Both of them are excellent lenses. The v2 uses a hood that locks on with a push-button before twist lock. Nice, but then again, I've never had a hood fall off the v1...

The IS on both lenses performs just as well, but the v2 seems to lock on a hair quicker and being a newer generation IS, gives an additional stop or so of IS usage.

I'd say it depends on your budget...if you've got the money, get the v2 and be done with it!


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2013)

I had v1 prior my v2. AF speed is faster and IQ is sharper with v2.

If budget is not an issue, try to get v2 in x-mas time. I got mine last x-mas at BH for less than $2000 free shipping.

If budget is tight, v1 still an excellent lens in this range.


----------



## No Mayo (Oct 31, 2013)

Both versions of the 70-200 2.8 use a 77mm filter (not an 82). I had both and agree that the original had a more pleasing bokeh but not by too much. On the other hand the difference in sharpness at 2.8 is pretty huge in favor of the new one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2013)

I have the first version, and have done so since it came out. I have no desire to "upgrade" as the images from it are spectacular and have certainly seen much more distracting bokeh (damn I hate that word but it is true) from the MkII. I would make your decision on what you shoot, if it is portraits with interesting backgrounds, weddings, events, etc, then I'd recommend the MkI if for nothing else than the background blur. If you mainly shoot sports, studio work with solid backgrounds, etc, then I'd go for the MkII.


----------



## TeckKing (Oct 31, 2013)

Thank you for all the feedback so far. Keep in mind I am shooting with a Canon 5D Mark I. Just from reading the comments I gather the main difference in real world situations is sharpness and bokeh, realistically how big is the difference in sharpness? 

Also is there a difference in the IS?


----------



## KitsVancouver (Oct 31, 2013)

TeckKing said:


> Thank you for all the feedback so far. Keep in mind I am shooting with a Canon 5D Mark I. Just from reading the comments I gather the main difference in real world situations is sharpness and bokeh, realistically how big is the difference in sharpness?
> 
> Also is there a difference in the IS?



I think these opinions always boil down to whether an image is pixel-peeped or not. I had the Mk I for years before upgrading to the Mk II. When the Mk I was around, many people said how awesome it was and that Canon couldn't improve on it. I never believed that because I bought two copies and even compared the one I chose to a friend's copy. None were sharp at the 100% level. I've got a fair amount of glass and of all the lenses I have used, the 70-200 Mk I was probably the second softest lens (at 100% at 2.8 or wide open) I've used a lot. The 16-35 wide open is pretty crappy too (at 100%). The other lens I'm not crazy about is the 24-105. I do use that lens a lot because it has IS and is great for taking snapshots of the young kids. When I want an image with high IQ, I will use something else. The new 70-200 Mk II, is not as sharp as my copy of the 85L, but it's close enough for me that I would use it for important photos. 

Now if you are not the kind of person who views images at 100%, then you likely won't notice a difference in sharpness between the Mk I and the Mk II. If you edit at 100% or you do pixel peep (which I proudly admit to), then you will notice what I would call, a HUGE difference when shooting at 2.8. 

Anyone who says there isn't a sharpness difference at 2.8, is not viewing at 100%. I can almost guarantee it. 

I would even go so far as suggesting you save for the Mk II if you can't afford it now. 

The locking lens hood is a huge improvement for me too. For some reason, my hoods often rotate out of lock for me so much that I have to keep checking it. I even used gaffers tape to tape down the hood of my 24-105 hood. You don't have that problem with the 70-200 Mk II.


----------



## Harv (Oct 31, 2013)

I have owned every version of the 70-200 that Canon has made, including 3 copies of the f/2.8 version I. I was never happy with the performance of that lens wide open and/or at the long end of the zoom. Every copy I had was soft at those settings.

I purchased the Version II when it became available and never looked back. The improvement was HUGE. The IS in this version is also much improved.

This lens is my go-to lens for a lot of what I shoot and pretty much lives on my 1D4 for motocross events, at which I have taken tens of thousands of images. It also gets a lot of time on my 5D3 for motocross as well as landscapes.

It was worth every penny.

You might want to read the review at TDP.....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

If you need that focal range and can afford it, I definitely recommend the Version II.


----------



## mkabi (Nov 2, 2013)

To the OP, you sure you're not looking at the IS version versus the non-IS version?
Because according to pricewatch, the difference between version I and version II is merely $200 difference, not $1000. Whereas the difference between the non-IS version and version II is $1000.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 2, 2013)

TechKink, check out used lenses I got a great deal on a m II this spring under 2k, warrenty, etc in the gta


----------



## TeckKing (Nov 3, 2013)

mkabi said:


> To the OP, you sure you're not looking at the IS version versus the non-IS version?
> Because according to pricewatch, the difference between version I and version II is merely $200 difference, not $1000. Whereas the difference between the non-IS version and version II is $1000.



Yes I'm sure, the reason I said I saw a $1000 difference is because, there is a used Mark I for sale at the price of $1500 and a price of a new Mark II would be about $2500.


----------



## rs (Nov 3, 2013)

If sharpness means anything to you, the mk I version of that lens won't make you happy at f2.8. Stop it down to f4 and it's really quite good at all focal lengths. Which begs the question - why not just get the lighter, smaller and potentially cheaper brand-new 70-200/4 IS, which even at f4 is sharper?

I had the mk I version, and upgrading to the mk II was a breath of fresh air. Not only is the wide open sharpness drastically improved, but the IS is noticeably better too.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2013)

My 70-200mm f/2.8 II is sharper wide open than my 70-200mm f4 is wide open. I try to shoot my f/4 at f/5.6, while I never fear shooting the f2.8 wide open.


----------



## BL (Dec 22, 2013)

TeckKing said:


> I am in the market to buy a Canon 70-200mm and I am torn between the Mark I and the Mark II. I have researched both of them and the Mark II seems to be the better choice, but for $1000 CDN is the difference in performance worth it? If any of you guys have either of the lenses could you help me out?



i have used both but own mk II - differences that stood out to me:

mark I has better bokeh, and costs less.
mark II is sharper at 2.8 and has better IS, and has a much closer MFD

ultimately the updated IS and much improved MFD sealed the deal for me.


----------



## bobby samat (Dec 23, 2013)

ive had the original 70-200 for seven years. i recently purchased the IS II. 

i'd say the original is more than fine for nearly everyone - it is an amazing lens - very accurate and reliable. 

the af on the new lens is faster and more accurate in low light and i personally think the background blur is noticeably more pleasing and smooth.

the IS II is also quite a bit heavier than the original. i've never minded a substantial feeling lens but this one is heavy.

there is also an additional weather seal on the rear of the lens that touches the camera when mounted. this was actually one of my main reasons for updating.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2013)

bobby samat said:


> ive had the original 70-200 for seven years. i recently purchased the IS II.
> 
> i'd say the original is more than fine for nearly everyone - it is an amazing lens - very accurate and reliable.
> 
> ...



Bobby, the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI also has the mounting weather sealing ring.


----------



## bobby samat (Dec 23, 2013)

hmm. my original 70-200 looks just like this one - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

there is no seal on the back, not the one i'm referrring to anyway.


----------



## bobby samat (Dec 23, 2013)

i see the miscommunication. when i said the original 70-200 2.8, i meant the version that came out before there was even ans IS model available.


----------

