Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM Mk1 vs Mk2

Which to go for?

Mk1 is cheaper, lighter and is parfocal but has worse lens flare and colour fringing.
Mk2 slightly more expensive, slightly heavier, non parfocal, has additional coatings to combat lens flare and fringing and has a slightly better IS system giving an effective additional stop of light.

Has anyone had any experience with both lenses? I would be using it on an 80D primarily with the intention of upgrading to FF sometime in the future.

The Parfocal capability of the Mk1 is very appealing to me as I do occasionally make videos, however the better IS and lens flare resistance of the Mk2 also appeal to me.

Hmmmm what to do???

Opinions greatly appreciated. Cheers G.

 

Thanks for the response, yes I'm looking to buy used from anywhere I can get a good deal tbh.

 

Just to throw another option out to you. What about the f4 version? Or do you need f2.8?

Gary

 

Go big or go home

In all fairness, I have considered the F4 but can't help but think that I'd only end up wishing I'd gone straight to the 2.8 for the additional low light capabilities. I love to shoot at night. That and the 2.8 version includes an F4 option.

Cheers G.

 

I have a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 in another mount. I also have the 70-200mm f4 Canon. What I find is that I use the f4 more often as it's lighter, smaller, and more comfortable to use. I also shoot alot in low light, but in these conditions I will be using a tripod. You may shoot differently of course.

Gary

 

Whilst I can see your point, and agree to some extent, recently for example with the comet that is visible in the night sky, I went out with my gear to try and get some shots of the night sky, I already have the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS ii USM but that didn't allow me to get enough light onto the sensor with a short enough shutter speed to reduce the star trails, where as with my Samyang 14mm F2.8 I was able to keep the exposure short and get plenty of light into the camera. This is why I'm thinking I should probably go straight to the 2.8. Planning to sell the 70-300 fo help fund the 70-200, will probably need an extender too.

Cheers G.

 

Agreed. If you are aiming the lens at the night sky, faster helps alot. So if I were you, I would buy the better optically lens. Otherwise you will look at your star images and think how much better would they had been with the better lens.

Have you looked at the f2.8 offerings from Sigma and Tamron? Or do you want to stick with a Canon lens?

Gary

 

I have done a lot of research into the options available, I was planning on going for the Sigma 70-200 Sport lens until I realised that as it's still quite new, there's really not a lot available in the used section at the moment and that makes it more expensive than a used Canon L. The Tamron G2 seems like it has potential but it is my understanding that it's not as sharp as the Canon or Sigma.

Not ruled any out completely yet though. Still gathering funds.

Cheers G.

 

Well with that thinking I'd have to go with the Sigma, currently available at £1099 with £130 cashback. Only drawback is it' almost 0.5 kg heavier!

Cheers G.

 

Even with cashback on the Mk3 Canon it's far too expensive for me to justify unfortunately

Cheers G.

 

Well, thanks for your responses to this thread and suggestions. I was browsing eBay last week and an auction which was too good to miss popped up. I came across a MK2 version of the canon f2.8. The seller had forgotten to add that it was a MK2. I'm assuming that people had been overlooking the auction as it was a starting bid of £699 which is quite high for a MK1, however after doing some investigation I convinced myself that it was actually the MK2 which had been listed incorrectly, so I placed a bid. I was the only bidder and won it for £699 which from my price watching and research is really cheap! It arrived today and is in amazing condition with original packaging and accessories. Can't wait to get our and shoot with it now, it is quite weighty though but that wasn't unexpected

Cheers G.

 

Gregory it's been a while now, are you pleased with your new lens and how does it perform? I am in the same situation you were in too now and can afford new but would rather save some money as well if the differences are not that big from a 2 to a 3.
Tnx

 

Thanks for your response and interest. Whilst I have no way to compare the MKi, MKii and MKiii lenses I can honestly say that I am very happy with my version of the MKii. I took it with me on a recent road trip to France and used it on my 80D a couple of times whilst there. It performed flawlessly. Supposedly as previously mentioned, the MKii and iii have better coatings on the glass to reduce chromatic aberration and I have to say that it seems to do a great job.

Below is a shot I captured with it. ISO100, F8.0, 1/30 125mm

Castle On The Lake by Gregory Lee posted Sep 12, 2020 at 8:51 PM

 

Awesome shot, looks like a beautiful place and thanks for the reply, appreciate it. I will likely get a 2 also cause I want to upgrade to an R6 or a 5D mk3 camera or a 90D, just cant make up my mind. Again thanks

 

I expect you know but the 90D is an APSC sensor compared to your 6D2, the R6 and the 5D4 which are all Full Frame. Have you considered the EOS R which is also FF and basically a Mirrorless 5D4?

 

Fair enough.