# 70-200 f2.8ii or i



## soybeanpapi (Jun 26, 2014)

It seems that my birthday is around the corner.. The only thing I want for my birthday is a new lens. I have been contemplating if a 70-200 f2.8 ii is going to be what I want. I have heard great reviews on it and I have been doing much side by side research on the two lenses. I was wondering if anyone has either the older version or the newest version and just give me personal opinions, facts or general knowledge before I make a decision. Ill be using the lens for portraits mainly. I shoot with a 5D 3 if that helps narrow down any information. Thank you everyone


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 26, 2014)

I had mrk I in the past, awesome lens. The only reason I upgraded to mrk II because BH had crazzzy sale during 2011 X-mas($400 off). Sold my mrk I and spent another $300 more for mrk II.

If budget is not an issue, mrk II is faster and sharper wide open. Mrk I is not too far behind, still a great lens.


----------



## soybeanpapi (Jun 26, 2014)

Thanks Dylan777! Its not the fact that money is or is not the issue, I just want the best quality for my use. Im also trying to decide how good is good. Thank you for the insight.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 27, 2014)

I have never used the mark I, but the ii is probably my most used lens along with a couple of big whites.

The latest version of anything is nearly always going to be better, whether it be in weight, weather sealing, AF or some other aspect of what it is you are buying.

If you can afford it, I would definitely go with the Mark ii if you can.

What will you be using it for?


----------



## BL (Jun 27, 2014)

The mkII's most improved features is the much improved MFD, along with much better performance with the new mkIII extenders imo.

If neither of those mean anything to you, pick up the awesome mkI and save yourself some coin!


----------



## Gary W. (Jun 27, 2014)

Hey all,

Spend about an extra $200-300 and get the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC AND the 70-200 2.8 VC. I have the 70-200 and it is an awesome lens!

Gary W.


----------



## photo212 (Jun 27, 2014)

You will not go wrong with either one. For portraits, unless you are enlarging the prints to huge dimensions, you probably will not see much of a difference. For peace of mind, if the money difference is not a major factor, get the MkII. It will last you for decades, well beyond your current body.


----------



## kennephoto (Jun 27, 2014)

photo212 said:


> You will not go wrong with either one. For portraits, unless you are enlarging the prints to huge dimensions, you probably will not see much of a difference. For peace of mind, if the money difference is not a major factor, get the MkII. It will last you for decades, well beyond your current body.



+1 this is so very true, I have the 70-200 2.8 usm so I guess I don't know what to call it since it's not the mark I but I love my 70-200 so much I couldn't imagine how much better the mark II is but it's your money and bday. Like the post I quoted stated you can't go wrong with the piece of mind having the best! It's certainly a chunk of change but well spent for sure.


----------



## Menace (Jun 27, 2014)

Get the mark II - can't go wrong with. I simply love mine.


----------



## rs (Jun 27, 2014)

I had the mk I. Excellent lens, but if you don't stop it down to f4 or smaller, the micro contrast and detail is _very_ disappointing, unless you only view the images on a small screen or print small.

After some time of using the lens, and getting frustrated by this, I started wondering why I didn't just have the f4 IS version - slightly sharper at f4, half the weight, and at the time, half the price. Plus it would be a perfect way to avoid Tv mode selecting a detail destroying aperture.

Anyway, I've upgraded to the mk II, and the differences I've noticed are dramatically improved wide open sharpness, even more dramatic improvement with TC's, and the IS is much more effective. Other than that it's the same bullet proof construction and exemplary handling.

Having owned the mk II, I wouldn't dream of going back to the mk I.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 28, 2014)

Regarding IQ, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is best, the 70-200 f/4L IS is 2nd best, and then the 70-200 f/2.8L I lens. It is a very good lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2014)

This is one of the few clear cut cases where the new lens is a huge improvement. The NON IS model is very good, but I had 4 of the IS ver I lenses and sold them all, they were all weak near 200mm, and with TC's, they were getting pretty ugly at 200mm.
Go for the MK II.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> This is one of the few clear cut cases where the new lens is a huge improvement. The NON IS model is very good, but I had 4 of the IS ver I lenses and sold them all, they were all weak near 200mm, and with TC's, they were getting pretty ugly at 200mm.
> Go for the MK II.



+1

Absolutely spot on. Was amazed at how people used to unconditionally praise the mrk 1 when by far most shots with such a lens tend to be taken at the very long end which is its weak spot. Also agree when it comes to the high quality of the non-IS which continues to be an amazing value option. If money is a question consider the f/4 IS L - every bit as sharp as the f/2.8 IS L II, just not going as wide open.

Good luck with your choice.


----------



## ErikNZ (Jun 28, 2014)

+1 from me as well.

I owned the NON-IS 70-200mm f/2.8L for a decade and I was very happy with that lens, it really was razor sharp at 100%. I had tested the IS version (Mk I) that was released at that time and although the IS was a great addition, the IQ had suffered on that lens. I looked at several Mk I IS versions and none of them could stack up against my older non-IS version.

Fast forward, the MkII IS is released and gets rave reviews so I decided to shell out and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II from B&H. 

I tell you, if my non-IS lens was great than the Mk II IS is AMAZING. In every side-by-side comparison, the II had a distinctive edge over my non-IS 70-200mm. The difference was especially noticeable wide-open. And then I haven't even mentioned the latest generation IS on this lens - which is awesome. So I sold the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS to a friend and I am certain the II will have a spot in my bag for another decade or so to come.

In this particular case, I can only say - yes it is more expensive but if you see yourself using this lens frequently, buying the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the most sensible thing you can do.


----------



## CaiLeDao (Jun 28, 2014)

As someone else who just upgraded from the Mark I to Mark II I have to support the its so much better perspective.
My past experience with this lens (mark I) was mixed. I was initially using it with a 5D mark II and had a lot of not quite in focus shots and it fell out of favour really as difficult at f2.8 to use and I used an f4 version which is a lot lighter and smaller non IS). 

Totally different story on the 5D mark III and its always with me, the Mark II version is just better and needs a lot less sharpening in post processing and f2.8 is great for portrait style.

I almost didn't do the upgrade as the DxOMark ratings say they are almost the same mark I and II, well they got that very wrong IMHO.


----------



## Colonel H (Jun 28, 2014)

+1 for me as well

I had the 70-200mm f/4 IS and sold it to get the 70-200mm F/2.8 MkII. It is my favorite zoom of all time (so far).

In fact I like it more now that I have jumped to the 5D MkIII from the 7D.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 28, 2014)

soybeanpapi said:


> It seems that my birthday is around the corner.. The only thing I want for my birthday is a new lens. I have been contemplating if a 70-200 f2.8 ii is going to be what I want. I have heard great reviews on it and I have been doing much side by side research on the two lenses. I was wondering if anyone has either the older version or the newest version and just give me personal opinions, facts or general knowledge before I make a decision. Ill be using the lens for portraits mainly. I shoot with a 5D 3 if that helps narrow down any information. Thank you everyone


With the Mark II you'll never go wrong, it is a fast, sharp and accurate lens. It is faster and sharper than the version I and, for additional information it works better with teleconverters (1.4X & 2X). If money doesn't matter then get it and enjoy shooting. Otherwise I suggest try the latest Tamron version with VC, which is just slightly less sharp than the Canon Mark II and sharper than Canon Mark I.
I also shoot with 5D3 BTW.


----------



## gbchriste (Jun 28, 2014)

I've owned both and used both on the 5D2 and 5d3. No contest that the MK2 lens is the one you want on the 5d3. The MK2 lenses have been optimized for the 5d3 and 1dx bodies. The difference in AF accuracy alone makes the cost difference worth it. I'm also a portrait shooter and stay at f2.8 pretty much all the time. Night and day difference between these 2 lenses on the 5d3.


----------



## soybeanpapi (Jun 28, 2014)

Thank you everyone for the feedback! I really appreciate it. I plan on doing a bulk load of portraits within the incoming fall months. Everything you guys and ladies said will be taken into consideration. Any thoughts on refurbished models?


----------



## soybeanpapi (Jul 2, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> soybeanpapi said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that my birthday is around the corner.. The only thing I want for my birthday is a new lens. I have been contemplating if a 70-200 f2.8 ii is going to be what I want. I have heard great reviews on it and I have been doing much side by side research on the two lenses. I was wondering if anyone has either the older version or the newest version and just give me personal opinions, facts or general knowledge before I make a decision. Ill be using the lens for portraits mainly. I shoot with a 5D 3 if that helps narrow down any information. Thank you everyone
> ...



thanks for the advice! I am going to rent the lens first and take it from there.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 2, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Regarding IQ, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is best, the 70-200 f/4L IS is 2nd best, and then the 70-200 f/2.8L I lens. It is a very good lens.



I had the non-IS, OK
had the IS v1, OK at the short end and very soft at the long end.*
sold it, got the v2, very nice and sharp, some CA in FF corners.
Found v2 could render some absolutely hideous bokeh at times, too often for my liking, so sold it too. Busy backgrounds that were near the transition zone could look aweful, not like the smoother rendering of other lenses. That can be the price you pay for a well-corrected lens.

I prefer the overall image balance I get from am older Tamron, pre VC model. The newest Tamron is pretty decent for the $ if you don't need the toughness or caché of the big white piece of pipe. What you save there allows you to buy their 24-70/2.8 VC also.
It really depends on what you need the lens to do. There's more to consider than just sharpness or how effective the stabilization is or how much CA there is.

* Turned out my v1 was not so much soft at the long end as front focusing quite badly at greater subject distances. Discovered that when MF'd images at 200mm were considerably sharper than AF shots.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 2, 2014)

Even tho I never used the Mk1, a big +1 for Mk2. 

I recently purchased the x2MK3 and tested in in a 7 rugby tournament. Everything crisp even at 400mm. furthermore, way better AF than what I expected. I was along the sideline, the wingback of one of the teams was mighty fast and AF did a very good job locking him when he was running "at me". Good stuff.

From what I heard it would have been a whole different experience with a mk1!

I'll try to post a link when I get a chance to fire up a VPN (damn great firewall).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 2, 2014)

Either the 70-200mm f2.8 LIS mkII or the 70-200mm f4 LIS are pretty much as good as it gets in the optical long zoom category. Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.


----------



## drolo61 (Jul 2, 2014)

I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...

Bottom line: If IQ is your driver, 4 will get you there. If weight and shooting time per day may be a limiting factor, don't go for the 2,8. It is substantially heavier more than double the weight and very obvious (no really for candid portraits)

If you are strong and committed to weight lifting -go for it, it is sooo cool...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 2, 2014)

drolo61 said:


> I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
> Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
> I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...
> 
> ...



Yep, optically there is little between them too.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 3, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.




uhmmm.. the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR may not be pro quality build but it's optically quite a good performer and is, for example, one of the better lenses to use on a D800e for maximum resolution.

So there's one.

And the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC is no slouch either, turning in a similarly good performance.
That's 2 other options or at least one if you want an EF mount.


----------



## rs (Jul 3, 2014)

Aglet said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > ..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.
> ...



Current generation FF bodies are unable to differentiate the Canon 70-200 II and Tamron 70-200 VC lenses by much of a margin. But if you compare these lenses with TC's fitted, that small gap in performance opens up to a huge void. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2014)

Aglet said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > ..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.
> ...



As I said, there is no direct equal for either lens. While the Nikon version is a match optically, it's build and application are not Pro build. As I said many times before, there is more to a lens than it's optics. Just becuase Nikon have made a lens with the same optical formula, it doesn't make it the same lens.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 3, 2014)

drolo61 said:


> I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
> Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
> I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...
> 
> ...



With the 4 you have no room for extender. It's f8 and bump iso or f8+ and MF. 2.8 leave you much more headroom.

The faculty to be useable with a x1.4 or x2 is a point to consider (what's not to love in a good 140-400 f5.6 for 400 bucks? -once you already have the lens that is-)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> drolo61 said:
> 
> 
> > I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
> ...



I've used a 70-200 f4 LIS with a 1.4x many times. It becomes an effective 100-300 f5.6 LIS with simular optical charectoristics to the new 70-300 f5.6 LIS. Sure, if you want to use a 2x tc you will need a 5DIII or 1Dx and only the centre points will work....but even with the f2.8 LIS II version, the 2x is pushing it a bit and the AF is pretty slow and ponderous.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 3, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've used a 70-200 f4 LIS with a 1.4x many times. It becomes an effective 100-300 f5.6 LIS with simular optical charectoristics to the new 70-300 f5.6 LIS. Sure, if you want to use a 2x tc you will need a 5DIII or 1Dx and only the centre points will work....but even with the f2.8 LIS II version, the 2x is pushing it a bit and the AF is pretty slow and ponderous.



Never used the 1.4, didn't remember the aperture reduction was lower. Thanks for the reminder.

of course I never used a true big white to compare but I was very pleasantly suprised by both AF and IQ during a recent outing (rugby game, sideline, fast wingbacks coming at me). Clearly didn't fail me.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 3, 2014)

Mark I vs mark ii....mark ii much sharper, which comes in handy when cropping.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I've used a 70-200 f4 LIS with a 1.4x many times. It becomes an effective 100-300 f5.6 LIS with simular optical charectoristics to the new 70-300 f5.6 LIS. Sure, if you want to use a 2x tc you will need a 5DIII or 1Dx and only the centre points will work....but even with the f2.8 LIS II version, the 2x is pushing it a bit and the AF is pretty slow and ponderous.
> ...



I recently compared my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II with a mkII 2x teleconverter with a 100-400 f5.6 IS L. The IQ was very good from both lenses. The 70-200 combo has more vignetting and softer corners. It was heavier and more unweildy too. Slightly longer focal length too. The IS usnit was clearly superior and the AF was a tad faster, which really suprised me. It's an effetive combo, but compared to the 400mm f5.6 L there is little comparison. The prime is sharper, less vignetting, CA etc, it's AF is snappier, faster and more accurate. It was far far lighter and a lot easier to use...but slightly less versatile. 

It would be awsome if Canon can make a 70-400mm which has the IQ and AF speed of the native 70-200 f2.8 LIS II.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 3, 2014)

No worries GMC, we agree, I just wanted to moderate the very negative overtone of your previous post.

Of course extenders are not as good as native primes. But for the hobbyist that will never buy a 400 better than that, having better results/possibilities with extenders are something to take into consideration too. That's all


----------



## K-amps (Jul 3, 2014)

It's a no brainer... get the Mk.II.

I am not a pro, I am not rich, and if Canon had priced the Mk.ii at $4000, I'd still get it, its that good.

It's one of those lenses that steps up the quality of your work... no easy way to describe it...

It is just one amazing lens!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> No worries GMC, we agree, I just wanted to moderate the very negative overtone of your previous post.
> 
> Of course extenders are not as good as native primes. But for the hobbyist that will never buy a 400 better than that, having better results/possibilities with extenders are something to take into consideration too. That's all



Sorry if you felt my reply was negative, it usually quite factual which can voice as a bit cold on forums. No offence were intended or implied and i'm quite freindly really. The 400 f5.6L is a very cost consious lens and very capable too. It lacks a close MFD and IS system but optically and from an AF point of view, it's a fantastic lens which often gets over looked. 

Just to push the conversation on a bit. The 1.4x TC on the f2.8 II L version is interesting too, it pretty much negates the need for the 300mm f4 LIS. The combo is just as sharp, AF is just as good, it's IS is superior and it zooms too.


----------



## krjc (Jul 4, 2014)

Just did the upgrade from the Mark l to the Mark ll, bottom line if you can afford it, get the ll, if you can't work and save up for it. Well worth it. Sharpness and AF speed/accuracy for me made it worth it.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 4, 2014)

krjc said:


> Just did the upgrade from the Mark l to the Mark ll, bottom line if you can afford it, get the ll, if you can't work and save up for it. Well worth it. Sharpness and AF speed/accuracy for me made it worth it.



One word...yep.


----------



## fotonunta (Jul 22, 2014)

*Ultra sharp -deliciously rich contrast !*

Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Zoom, more than likely, is Canon's sharpest lens that Canon is offering today !

Currently, I shoot with my dated EOS 5D Mark II and when this lens is attached to it, this lens is used for most all situations needed ~ which include: Portraiture, Landscapes, and for Semi-Macro needs as well.. There is hardly anything that this lens cannot do !!!!

This lens makes one feel as if he or she has a precision piece of combined glass elements in their hands and there is nothing about this lens, when Canon had designed it, that had been overlooked ~ as it is extremely solid and heavy like it should be, it is totally solid without the typical clinking and clunking that long lenses sometime demonstrate, and it produces images that of extreme quality that are off the charts !


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jul 23, 2014)

I bought the non-IS about a year ago, after the Sigma (100-300 f4) that I was using lost autofocus and repair parts were unavailable. Of course I would have gotten the IS2 if I could afford it, but I could not and the non-IS was a thousand bucks less. Very happy with the lens, no complaints, and the high ISO on the 5D3 is so good that I can just bump up ISO in place of using IS. (I also use a tripod often, which of course negates the need for IS).

I find it tack sharp and it is interesting to see people here say it is actually sharper than the IS version 1. Makes me glad I got the non-IS new instead of getting an IS1 used. But of course if money is not an issue than by all means you should get the IS2. For me the main advantage of the IS2 would not be the IS, but rather the closer minimum focusing distance.


----------

