EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I vs II

[coachboz68]

I've owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I for close to 10 years with the predominant use case of shooting sports on a 7D Mark I.  I'm now moving to college sports and am working on generally trying to "raise my game" a few notches along the way.   I bought the 1DXII body and have been amazed by its capabilities.  It is still FAR more capable than its owner!  I shoot mostly indoor fast-action sports, accompanied by tough lighting and difficult AF Tracking situations. 

Having read many of the technical reviews on the 70-200mm I vs II, I was hoping to get some feedback from folks who have used both in real-world settings.  For those that have, knowing what you know now, was your upgrading from I to II a good choice in hindsight?  I understand that is a question that leads to very subjective answers, but it's that subjectivity that interests me at the moment.  

Thanks! 

[ebiggs1]

"...I'll need to do some learning on lighting for portrait photography."

Not to belabor the point, but the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is also the best portrait lens. I have used virtually all of them and seem to always come back to the zoom.  It has been and is more and more becoming the 'goto' portrait lens for the industry.

[coachboz68]

Do you find there's a particular sweet spot in the focal length for portaits?  Or is that just going to be completey situation and personal taste dependent?  

[ebiggs1]

"...completey situation..."

Yes!  Because it is a zoom and such a versatile lens it has become the favorite.  We use to like the 85mil, 100mil up to 135mm but his lens offers all in one package.  Add to the fact it has a reasonably fast constant aperture doesn't hurt either.

[coachboz68]

Just want to update the group and leave this feedback for anyone else deciding between the mark 1 and 2 of this lens... 

Just finished my first shoot with the new 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.  Prom night.  

I don't think I am ever going to want to use another lens! 

Absolutely fabulous.  The clarity, IQ, and IS combination is just amazing.  I was also using my 24-70 L (also mark 1) and there was just no comparison when zooming into the details.  

this 70-200 was worth every penny for me.  Can't remember when I was so thrilled with a lens!  

Thanks for all the feedback while I was deciding.  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@coachboz68 wrote:

Just want to update the group and leave this feedback for anyone else deciding between the mark 1 and 2 of this lens... 

Just finished my first shoot with the new 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.  Prom night.  

I don't think I am ever going to want to use another lens! 

Absolutely fabulous.  The clarity, IQ, and IS combination is just amazing.  I was also using my 24-70 L (also mark 1) and there was just no comparison when zooming into the details.  

this 70-200 was worth every penny for me.  Can't remember when I was so thrilled with a lens!  

Thanks for all the feedback while I was deciding.  

---

Not to keep you spending money, but it also works very nicely (as an outdoor lens anyway) with the 1.4X III extender.

[ebiggs1]

"Thanks for all the feedback while I was deciding. "

Great 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@coachboz68 wrote:

Do you find there's a particular sweet spot in the focal length for portaits?  Or is that just going to be completey situation and personal taste dependent?  

---

Believe it or not, it depends on the length of the subject's nose.

When you take a portrait, which typically includes not much more than the subject's face, your first impulse is to move in close to fill the frame. But that imposes a wide-angle effect that tends to exaggerate the length of the subject's nose. The cure for that is to move back (to lessen the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the rest of the face) and to use a longer lens (to fill the frame as it would have been filled if you hadn't moved back). So if the subject has a very long nose, you move back farther and use an even longer lens. The historical consensus is that on a full-frame camera the focal length should be, on average, somewhere between 85 and 135 mm.

I don't pretend to be a portrait photographer, but my preference, such as it is, is about 135 mm on a full-frame camera. That would be just under 85 mm on Canon's version (1.6 "crop factor") of an APS-C camera. As usual, YMMV.

[limvo05]

I've been saving for weeks if not longer to come up with just enough cash to get the mark i version, for a good price, $800 to be exact. To my surprised, the lense still in prestine condition, not a single scratch on the body or glass. Anyway, I am noticing the photos seems to have a strong blue casting shade. Not sure if this is expected with this type of lens or something is wrong with the lens? Thanks,
LV

[coachboz68]

---

@limvo05 wrote:

I've been saving for weeks if not longer to come up with just enough cash to get the mark i version, for a good price, $800 to be exact. To my surprised, the lense still in prestine condition, not a single scratch on the body or glass. Anyway, I am noticing the photos seems to have a strong blue casting shade. Not sure if this is expected with this type of lens or something is wrong with the lens? Thanks,
LV

---

After nearly 10 years and who knows how many thousands of pictures, my 70-200 MK 1 never had any issues like the one you described.  The lens is pretty legendary, so I would say something like you describe is not to eb "expected."    

[limvo05]

Here is a sample photo, that said, this one doesn't look too bad other than it's a little out of focus as I was closer than the minimum focus distant required, and i don't have my reading glasses on to manual focus properly.

Should I be worried something wrong with the lens? Thanks