Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM SLR

[paddyfrog]

Hi
A silly question but is there much difference between these 2 lenses (else than the price) :

Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM SLR Lens

Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS MK II
Thank you

 

[cuthbert]

The MK2 version has image stabilisation, weather sealing and is sharper (a fair bit sharper, especially towards the 200mm end) across the entire frame. it also focusses a little bit closer too.

This site will allow you to see the difference:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I have the non-IS (the cheaper version) and it's still an excellent lens, if you don't need IS or weather sealing then then it's a great compromise. In real photography, it's still plenty sharp enough. I love mine.

 

[cuthbert]

Here's few shots with mine... it's pretty sharp and all of these are at f2.8 too.

 

[draiman]

The mark i version still has IS but the minimum focus distance is slightly longer and the images are not quite as sharp as they are on the mark ii.

The mark ii is generally regarded as a stunning lens by all. I own the mark i and find it amazing in every way. I personally wouldn't justify the extra cost of the mark ii unless you absolutely needed it. Not that I would say no to a mark ii if anyone's feeling charitable!

 

[cuthbert]

sorry, my bad i misread.

you can't buy the original MK I (IS) version new anymore but the Non-IS and MK2 IS are still available. All my pictures are with the NON-IS version. Sorry about the confusion.

The point is, whichever version you go for, optically they are all very good lenses.

 

[DigitalRelish]

Love those shots, Mark. Full of character! I used to own the MK1 IS version and loved it for similar portrait use. For that, it was plenty sharp enough.

 

[paddyfrog]

Those shots are beautiful Mark, as sharp as can be, I can't wait to get my hand on one of these lens, MK 1 or MK 2 does not matter, but there are very few second hand ones available.

Thank you all for your replies