Is the IS version of the 70-200 that much better than the first version?

well i would get the is 2.8 mk II


as "apparently" its far better. however i don't own any 70-200

read reviews

Well yea but the money id be saving from getting the first version could get me some goodies but if the IS version is that much better ill get it

it is proven that the 70-200mm 2.8 IS mark II is noticably better in terms of image quality and sharpness than any of the older ones. however, 2000 bucks for a lense, you gotta be pretty sure you need that.

The 70-200 2.8 mark ii is good enough that that I'm debating whether if should sell my 100L macro and 135L and buy the 85L and 35L.

i bought a 70-200 2.8 IS maybe 2 years ago and I hardly ever use it. You have to think about what you shoot. This isn't really a good street lens as its huge and make you stick out like a sore thumb so getting candid can be rather challenging. if your shooting sports or wild life it can be a good lens (although its reach is a little short for wildlife but with a 2x tele-converter its reach is more then appropriate, but then your losing sharpness and speed so you might as well buy a 100-400). if your doing studio portraiture which i hear a lot of people praising this lens for, I'd go with pretty much any prime 50mm+ over this lens any day. The thing that makes the 70-200 shine is its the work horse of lenses it's a great lens very sharp, well made, but it's not really the best lens for any one job. I bought mine thinking I would use it as a general lens but ended up renting lenses when I needed them for specific things. wish i used the money to buy a 16-35 to be honest.

this is basically how I see lenses

street photographer
16-35
24-70

portraiture work (studio work in genereal)
primes 50mm+

wild life
100-400
70-200 + 2x tele-converter

sports
70-200
100-400

landscape
35mm prime or less
16-35

of course there's always the oddity in each situation.

EDIT:TL:DR in other words, dont buy a 70-200.

This post was edited by zatoichi on Jun 30 2011 05:00pm

you forgot photo journalism, which for the 70-200mm might be the best lens ever.

actually you'd be surprised how wide most journalists go ( LOL). 16-35 is the standard by most. the idea is your going to be printing rather small and on shit paper with a shit image quality so you use a wide lens to not miss action then crop in post. of course when the situation calls for a tele in photojournalism 70-200 is indeed the bees knees.

well, to be fair, most journalists run around with 2 bodies, one with wide angle and one with tele. and the tele is a 70-200 in 99% of the times.

I have the 70-200 2.8 non IS version and I feel its great enough as it is