Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS verses Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II: I presently own the f4L version of this lens and love it but want the f2.8L for lower light shooting. Its main use will be...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS verses Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

Feb 3, 2012 02:11:51 #

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

I presently own the f4L version of this lens and love it but want the f2.8L for lower light shooting. Its main use will be wildlife in the woods or birding at the lakes or shore.

I have found the earlier version used for around $1700.00 The new version would cost me $2074.00, $400.00 more with tax. The used one is listed as excellent+ condition.

Is the new one worth the $400.00 difference? I have read excellent reviews on both lens, very simular reviews. My head is spinning so figured i would muddy the water and ask for the groups thoughts.

Jim D

Feb 4, 2012 08:37:23 #

mainshipper Loc: Hernando, Florida

There were several recent threads on this topic. Here's one - http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-11724-1.html

Feb 4, 2012 09:28:51 #

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

actigner wrote:

There were several recent threads on this topic. Here's one - http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-11724-1.html

I found a couple of topics listed as you state but all have one problem. ALL OF THEM BECOME AN "IS VERSUS NON-IS" TOPIC.

I have already decided I am going with the IS version. My question is:

Is the second version of this lens worth the $400.00 more it will cost me over the first version of the same lens, both being the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS?

Or another way of asking would be:

What is the difference between the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS and the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Jim D

Feb 4, 2012 09:50:40 #

mainshipper Loc: Hernando, Florida

Here is the most recent link http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-23093-1.html

Feb 4, 2012 10:07:56 #

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

actigner wrote:

Here is the most recent link http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-23093-1.html

Thank you, I missed the one.

dpreview is one of the sites I use all the time. I have read all their reviews on these lens and they rate both basically as excellent . I am leaning towards the used older lens because there is so little difference in them and I am not a "pro" so how much would I gain by spending the extra money?

Jim D

Feb 4, 2012 10:50:41 #

senad55verizon.net Loc: Milford, NJ

oldtool2 wrote:

actigner wrote:

Here is the most recent link http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-23093-1.html

Or, for that matter, increasing your ISO by one EV. There are good programs to deal with a bit of noise nowadays.

Feb 4, 2012 12:19:00 #

Ugly Jake Loc: Sub-Rural Vermont

I don't mean to compare you to me, but here is no way in *That-Eternal_Hot_Place* I could tell the difference between 2 pieces of f2.8 "L" glass from Canon. Sheesh - save the $400 for a trip to Alaska for eagles, or Florida for egrets, or a Central American junket or . . . . . .

Feb 4, 2012 15:51:57 #

mainshipper Loc: Hernando, Florida

I just added the new model 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II lens to my collection replacing a 70-200 f4 L USM and the reason I did it was because it works very well with the Canon 1.4X and 2X extenders and because it's a really good lens. Could I have found a used non II model, sure. I just wanted to future proof myself and get the best available.

Feb 4, 2012 21:47:40 #

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

According to Ken Rockwell ( @ kenrockwell.com )the II version is the sharpest tele-zoom on the planet and IF you ever plan to sell, .... the II will be worth MORE !

If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.

Main Photography Discussion

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum