tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Wonder if any of you have an opinion on the difference between the first and second version of the Canon 200mm EF lens?
The upgrade to II didn't include image stabilization, so wonder if there is a significant advantage in paying the $300 more or so for the MK II?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I just looked at the complete lens lineup of new and old lenses and don't see an earlier model of f/2.8 200mm lens. Canon offers 200mm f/2.0 L lens and a 200mm f/2.8 L II lens and none that I see earlier than that or more current than that.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tin, I have used the 200 2.8 mkl and it's a very nice lens.
In any lens, for there to be a mkll, there was a mkl.
All of the mkll lenses have improvements over the mkl models. All are sharper, but probably nothing you'll see short of pixel peeping.
The 200 mkll is NOT one of the new generation of mkll lenses, as are the super teles. I believe its been around about 7 or 8 years. Newer glass holds better resale than the older glass(since it costs more), so to pay more for it, is to get more for it when you sell it.
The 200 isn't all that popular, since the 2.8 zooms are as fast, but way more versatile. And the zoom is as sharp, with the mkll zoom probably sharper.
In the end, it's probably worth 4300 more, since it actually uses a more updated internal design, but no integrated hood. It's a good lens for sports, but not as good as the zooms versatility.
Not sure if any of this helps. Good luck. ;-)
SS

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I would have to agree but I wasn't able to see the specs on the older model of 200mm lens on the Canon web site. I did look on eBay and found one that didn't have the mark II designation and was made in 1993. I am wondering if this is what the OP is talking about.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Jeep, that's probably it, as it's pretty old. A freind of mine is a very good photographer and refuses, as of yet, to use a zoom. He also shoots for a newspaper, and got the mkl to shoot sports. I think he paid around $400 for it, or less, cant remember. But it will take a TC. Neither are very new, but it's a really sharp lens, but not as sharp as the ll.
SS

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Thanks to all. I suspect that just as soon as I buy either version an IS will be released and then the value of the current 200mm 2.8 will plummet. For now I think I will wait, and possibly get the 4.0 70-200 IS (Had the 2.8 and just to heavy but a great lens.)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you have some of the books "Canon Lens Work II and III" you could compare the MTF charts and see what they say in there. I can recall NO One ever finding any substantile difference between the original and version II ! It is an excellent/economical way to go to 280 and 400mm with Tamron TC's .....