Is the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS sharp wide open?

I really want to upgrade my telephoto before this summer but the MkII is outside my budget of $1500.   I've heard the MkII is super sharp at 2.8 and I'm wondering if the MkI also performs well wide open at all focal lengths?  I'm able to find used copies of the MkI around $1399-1499 at well known dealers and used copies of the MkII are running around $2k in the rare instances when I can find them available (unfortunately I was not one of the lucky ones to snag a MkII for $1599 in the first few seconds of the recent Canon refurb sale).  Thanks for your help!

Hi

I had the 70-200 IS F/2.8 Version 1 for one wedding. After seeing the results wide open, I got the 70-200L IS Version 2. It is so much better. Worth every cent that you pay

Cheers

Martin

I asked much the same question myself some time ago, both on here and another photo forum. There were lots of responses telling me about just how wonderful version II was but some very telling ones from version I users, professional working photographers among them who said they were happy and saw no need to upgrade. No doubt the newer one is better than the first, but as I am always very happy with results wide open, and just a keen amateur photographer I have so far managed to stop myself falling for the upgrade.

Kruegs wrote:

I really want to upgrade my telephoto before this summer but the MkII is outside my budget of $1500. I've heard the MkII is super sharp at 2.8 and I'm wondering if the MkI also performs well wide open at all focal lengths? I'm able to find used copies of the MkI around $1399-1499 at well known dealers and used copies of the MkII are running around $2k in the rare instances when I can find them available (unfortunately I was not one of the lucky ones to snag a MkII for $1599 in the first few seconds of the recent Canon refurb sale). Thanks for your help!

I had the v1 for several years but have since upgraded to v2. As others have said, there is a very clear improvement in wide open performance (sharpness/contrast), especially on the long end. Nevertheless, I found the v1 OK wide open after some post processing. Apparently, the non-IS version is better wide open. You might also want to take a look at the new Tamron, which has received very good reviews. Good luck!

Kruegs wrote:

I really want to upgrade my telephoto before this summer but the MkII is outside my budget of $1500. I've heard the MkII is super sharp at 2.8 and I'm wondering if the MkI also performs well wide open at all focal lengths? I'm able to find used copies of the MkI around $1399-1499 at well known dealers and used copies of the MkII are running around $2k in the rare instances when I can find them available (unfortunately I was not one of the lucky ones to snag a MkII for $1599 in the first few seconds of the recent Canon refurb sale). Thanks for your help!

Good grief, yes! I'm a career photojournalist and still carry the 70-200 f/2.8 version I all the time. I often shoot wide open and the results are sharp as a tack. By all accounts version II is even better, but I haven't see a compelling reason to upgrade.

Thanks! Really hard to to wrong with any of the 70-200 line of lenses. They are legendary.

I have a 1997 2.8.  I agree that it is quite adequate.  I am still shooting swim meets at 1600-3200 ISO at 2.8 and 3.2 with it and getting highly usable pictures.  It does great head shots as shown above.

DA photo wrote:

I have a 1997 2.8. I agree that it is quite adequate. I am still shooting swim meets at 1600-3200 ISO at 2.8 and 3.2 with it and getting highly usable pictures. It does great head shots as shown above.

That would be the non-IS version right? The first IS version was launched in 2001, I believe.

There is a phenomenon with equipment, that if you spend a fortune on it, you automatically think it is better, and indeed much better, than its cheaper alternative.

Now, I've a 70-200L ii myself and it's excellent, but I tried that non-IS version which a friend had, some time ago and I was equally impressed with it. And, as for IS, it's useless for todlers chasing around..

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

There is a phenomenon with equipment, that if you spend a fortune on it, you automatically think it is better, and indeed much better, than its cheaper alternative.

Now, I've a 70-200L ii myself and it's excellent, but I tried that non-IS version which a friend had, some time ago and I was equally impressed with it. And, as for IS, it's useless for todlers chasing around..

Agreed!

Yes, it's a well know congnitive bias called Confirmation Bias.

There is also Sour Grapes, which is denigrating good equipment because one cannot afford it. Sour Grapes here is usually accompanied by rote appeals to DXO scores.

Kruegs wrote:

Finally one of the responses suggested the new Tamron 70-200. Does anyone have advice to help me choose between the Canon MkI or a new Tamron?

I have not tried the Tamron, but by most accounts, it is closer to the Canon V2 than the v1. There are many reviews out there, e.g.: http://www.lenstip.com/375.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-200_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD-Introduction.html

Right, Anders non IS.   I have used it for weddings, sports, head shots, portraits, and amortized it is the best photo investment I have made over the years.