Canon EF 70-200 2.8 IS USM i vs ii Comparison (With download files)

Comparing the sharpness and overall quality of the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM vs it's newer version the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM II.
All photos shot on the Canon EOS R with EF adapter.
I have been looking for more information comparing these two lenses and haven't found a lot, so here's some good info I discovered! Is it worth it to upgrade? Check out the quality of the these photos and determine for yourself!
Specs of the lenses:
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM
Price: (use caution when buying) used on FB/Ebay $800-1000
Weight: 1470g
8 aperture blades
23 elements in 18 groups
Min. focusing distance 1.4m
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM II
Price: (use caution when buying) used on FB/Ebay $1000-1200
Weight: 1490g
8 aperture blades
23 elements in 19 groups
Min. focusing distance 1.2m
Overview of the version ii lens from Canon's website:
"Improving upon one of the most celebrated lenses in the Canon EF line is no easy feat, but Canon has done just that. The all-new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM increases the speed, performance and optical quality of the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM while maintaining all of the characteristics that have made it a legend for professionals and advanced amateurs alike. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM features one fluorite and five UD elements for increased optical quality and reduced chromatic aberration. It has a minimum focusing distance of 1.2m/3.9 ft. at all zoom settings, which is useful for photographers in smaller spaces trying to get closer to a subject. It features a next-generation Optical Image Stabilizer, providing up to 3.5 stops of correction at all focal lengths. And as with all L-series lenses, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is dust- and moisture-resistant and designed for use in the challenging environments typical of rigorous professional use."
VIEW/DOWNLOAD FILES via Google Link
While you are looking at these files, click on the small "information" icon in the top right corner to see which photos I've named "V1" or "V2" for "version 1" and "version 2"
Unedited: photos.app.goo...
Edited: photos.app.goo...
And BTW, after analysis of the edited photos, you'll notice very little difference between the two lenses. It can still be seen, but the first version of this lens still does a great job. Version 2 just kicks it up a notch!

[@classikviewproductions]

Thabks for this comparison. Im currently shopping for a used 70-200 and wasnt certain if theres much of a difference. Thanks to you I know! Great job

[@sethc.art.wright]

Thanks!

[@Twobarpsi]

Great video! I have version III, and it is such a great lens! II and III are optically very similar.

[@sethc.art.wright]

That's good to know! That's what I've heard! So I'm going to stick with the second version :)

[@Twobarpsi]

@@sethc.art.wright 👍

[@Cinebon]

I got my hands on the v2 of this lens. I’m using a Sony a6600 with an adapter and I absolutely love it, it’s sharp down to the pixel even wide open at f/2.8. Great video!

[@IwasKiddinggg]

hows the autofocus in photo and video?

[@denisetiadi.17]

adapter??

[@sadeqsegaraga8766]

May i know what k8nd of adapter on the a6600?

[@HeadlessChickenTO]

I just got v1 non-IS a week ago for my daughter's dance gala/show, which had difficult-ish lighting. I run an R7, and my only wide range lense is a Sigma 18-300 f3.5-6.3 with an AF motor that seems to miss focus a lot. My results were fantastic. I've never had such sharp shots. But the best part, I got it used in good condition...$850(CAN). I did a little shopping around, I can only find it for around $1100. The only thing I'm missing is the lense hood and cap.

[@sethc.art.wright]

Nice man!

[@connormcknight1815]

Great video! I’ve been looking for a video comparing these two. One thing I would have liked to have seen is a comparison between backlit subjects getting some loss in contrast, because I heard that was a big difference between the two.

[@sethc.art.wright]

Oh that’s cool! Yeah I didn’t think about that but have several remote flashes I could have used. I sold my first version unfortunately, but I’ve used the second version for several weddings and portraits since making this and I have to say, it’s kicks so much more ass than the first version! Especially in color. It’s weird to think a lens changes color, but it does. It looks so much better.

[@crazypersonlol34]

This comparison was exactly what I needed. Thanks sir

[@sethc.art.wright]

I didn't know you were getting into photography, Ted Nugent! Hahaha

[@crazypersonlol34]

@@sethc.art.wright Lol, i wish i was ted. I'm def his biggest fan!!

[@Brando90198]

I can respect the time and effort that goes into making this. However IS shouldn’t be on when mounted on tripod monopod only when handheld. Additionally sharpness is really meaningless anymore. That meaning both of those lenses are professional grade. For 99.9999999999% of the people there’s no return on investment. People care more about the moment. And have been brainwashed thinking they need to have the newest most megapixels camera and sharpest lens.

[@sethc.art.wright]

Agree to disagree, but I appreciate the comment 🙂 every tool and spec serves a purpose. The difference is knowing why you want that tool rather than blindly buying it because someone else tells you it’s needed.

[@WatermelonSaurus]

I really enjoyed your video. I just found the exact lense Ver.1. from 2006 haha. Your video helped me out making decision whether I should upgrade or not.

[@sethc.art.wright]

Awesome glad you got it!

[@thereseellefsen4733]

Thank you so much for making this I really needed it☺️

[@sethc.art.wright]

Of course! Glad you like it!

[@andjames]

Thanks for this comparison! It's time to upgrade my 70-200 2.8 v1, it's seen one too many dings and there's a handful of 2.8 v2s on sale near me for about $900-$1200, which would be nearly the same as getting the v1 refurbed. I haven't been able to compare v2 and v3 (2.8) but my experience with the v3 was stellar from the v1, but I knew to expect that. Thanks again, this is helpful in figuring out my next step.

[@sethc.art.wright]

For sure James! Thanks so much! And yeah I also found my 2.8 v2 for $900 and I haven't regretted it one bit.

[@y.a7794]

@@sethc.art.wright where do you guys find them for that price cause ive been searching

[@Janet_Airlines802]

I'm looking to upgrade from my f4, the price difference between version 1 and 2 is substantial. Thanks for the video.

[@sethc.art.wright]

For sure man! The F4 is great, but the 2.8 II is just phenomenal if you can save up for it!

[@CreativelyJeff]

Thank you!!! Finally a good comparison of the two!

[@sethc.art.wright]

Thanks Jeff!!

[@kellyakakells]

Great review. My Version II is on the way 😀

[@sethc.art.wright]

Sweet!!!! Congrats!! I'm thinking about getting the RF 70-200 already, even though it's WAYYYY more expensive! If I do, I'm going to do a comparison between the version II EF and the RF. I kind of want to rent it to do the comparison too just to really see that it makes sense to buy it before I do.

[@amiguirigillo]

Thanks for you video, what you said about use f4, this help me a lot for think I could get a lens canon ef 70-200mm f4 for I'm thinking really use it in races trailtunning, usually environments are a lot sun lights, so I;m not worry about darkness and actually are people running, I think is better F4 for get focus all their bodies.

[@phutranxuan1463]

I think you should do a test in a sunny day Turn off IS when using tripod Take higher shutter speed, more than 1/200s Care fully check for the forcus point of each picture

[@iancurrie8844]

I agree. This wasn't a very useful comparison. Use a mirrorless R body and focus manually with the red indicators to check for exact focus.

[@austinberner31]

Thanks so much for making this! I’m trading in my old stuff with KEH, and I’m making the choice for which 70-200 I’m looking for…I’ll see if there’s a V2 that is priced well!

[@sethc.art.wright]

Awesome you should definitely do it!

[@jeffdeal1162]

Thanks for the review. Had the non IS original, then the IS, and will be replacing it with the IS II. The III and RF models cost way too much.

[@sethc.art.wright]

For real! And I’m a little skeptical of the RF not being weather sealed. I think this EF version II is the best 70-200 to get.

[@joshuahoggard583]

I love the version 1 non is lens, personally. For myself, I don't see a reason to get an is lens for my application.

[@NS-cd7jn]

I think stabilisation should be turned off when on a tripod right?

[@jonathangonza]

It fucks up with the sharpness if you don't.

[@jasonmays1844]

Same thing I’ve heard

[@Lamidnightsss]

Awesome. I just bought version 2. I thought it looked a bit soft at 2.8. I’ll need to start shooting at f4.

[@sethc.art.wright]

Thanks!

[@MrRenoman2011]

great video I have the first version but love it. your video was awesome for sure

[@sethc.art.wright]

Thanks Ronald I appreciate that! And I just bought the 70-200 RF 2.8 so I'm trying to get a video comparing these two lenses up soon! :)

[@alosanz]

Thank you! Very useful information!!

[@sethc.art.wright]

For sure Alvaro! Glad it could help!

[@enlightenment6278]

THANKS, you helped me immensely!

[@sethc.art.wright]

Sweet man I'm glad I could help!! Keep killin it out there!

[@ken830]

I think leaving stabilization on while on a tripod will explain a big part of the difference with the version I lens. The earlier generation stabilizer is going to introduce too much movement. I ordered a II from B&H and they sent me a I, so I'm also going to do some comparisons when the II gets here tomorrow. I'm using it on an R7 with a speed booster, and I saw a huge amount of CA and vignetting on the version I. Hopefully, II will be an improvement.

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

Can you give an update? I'm dying to know how the mark 2 did.😧

[@ken830]

@@WOLFTICKVIDEOS Mark II had hugely improved focus accuracy and the CA was nearly completely gone. Either Mark I has very poor CA performance or there may be some issues with this particular copy of the lens I got from B&H. Moderate vignetting at telephoto range seems about the same. Not sure if that's an issue with using a speed booster or it's the normal amount of vignetting expected for the lens. I don't have a FF body to test.

[@tyroneparker8399]

@@ken830 what I find funny is we always find ways to justify spending money. When the v1 first came out it was the greatest lens ever made… A lot of photographers say (including me) it’s not the gear it’s what you do with it… especially with the post processing that you will do anyway. It will make a v1 look like the v2. 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@BlackStar-ol4hw]

@@tyroneparker8399 What I find funny is people who thought an 80 GB hard drive in a 1999 computer is more than you'll ever need, same with a 150 HP engine in a 1940's car, or a 480P DVD player in 1997

[@MyMarketingGuy101]

@@tyroneparker8399you read my mind. Most people (including myself) can get the v1 to look like a lens that’s far more expensive with just a little time in that good old software called photoshop. Shoot in RAW and than editing possibilities are endless.

[@flippy66]

Well, Mark II it is then!

[@nataliebaker6464]

This was great! Thank you!

[@sethc.art.wright]

Thanks! You're welcome!

[@FluidSurfing]

Amazing!

[@mraz1017]

Thanks so much , very clear.....

[@sethc.art.wright]

Of course, thank you :)

[@mrcross5716]

Shame you missed focus on the first photos

[@alexbormanbou]

Great video. Thanks

[@sethc.art.wright]

Thank you! :)

[@user-sq8yw1ph9x]

Hello! I'm relatively new to photography, so i didn't get the part where you transitioned to F4? Could you explain? Would really appreciate it.

[@sethc.art.wright]

I switched to F4 because it creates less depth but a sharper image on the subject. So I just wanted to see how sharp they were at F4

[@carnal032]

I wish I could have lenses like that ❤️

[@sethc.art.wright]

You will get there!! Get the 75-300 while you wait, that lens is pretty fun and only cost like $100 or less :)

[@stephencosta6814]

@@sethc.art.wright nice recommendation. I just picked up version one from OfferUp $350 in mint condition.

[@MishaRGB]

Thanks for the review, now I am confidently buy verstion II

[@sethc.art.wright]

You should! It's awesome!

[@MishaRGB]

@@sethc.art.wright Just got it, I am freaking shocked how awesome it is

[@sethc.art.wright]

@@MishaRGB Dude so glad I could help! And yes it changed my whole experience using the lens! Hope you get some amazing pictures with it and can see the difference!

[@MishaRGB]

@@sethc.art.wright I had the same feeling when I got 85 mm, 1.2 MK2

[@sethc.art.wright]

@@MishaRGB Oh no way? I've never owned an 85mm just because I love the 50 1.2 and this 70-200. Together I get a lot of what I want. I've been considering saving to buy the RF 85 though. But maybe after a few other things haha.

[@ImpulsLive]

Merci pour ce test !!!

[@sethc.art.wright]

You're welcome!

[@jackmen4]

……….but what about the version ii vs iii

[@WiFuzzy]

There used to be reviews on it. But youtube refuses to show you them now. No idea why. But I remember watching them when I bought mine. You used imige stabilization on a tripod? That makes this all pointless.

[@wertz987]

Didn't your mama teach you to not play in the streets 😂 jk good review but I just picked up vIII for the first time and I love it😊

[@golferpro1241]

The III. I LOVE IT!

[@071Engie]

Images on first version 70-200 2.8 IS shoud not be that soft. I used 70-200 f4 without IS and there was very sharp images start from f4. Then i used 70-200 f2.8 IS, image was sharp too even with f2.8, but there was a little CA, but that is not problem. Then i try to use 70-200 f2.8 II IS, but i cant see no difference in image sharpeness or image quality, they 90% the same, a bit improvement with CA on second version. On video there is some problems with first 70-200, its must be much sharper. Sometimes there was some problems on first version with using IS on tripod and IS is not stopping and there some tilt of image.

[@sethc.art.wright]

F4 will always be extremely sharp. I show it in this video. 2.8 can be sharp but not always at every distance. That's where newer lenses do better. They focus better and quicker, they are sharper across more distances, and they have closer focusing distances. The first version of the 70-200 is sharp, but not as sharp as the newer lenses.

[@richardgardner4252]

Hi there. Why did you have your IS set to on during a tripod test?

[@sethc.art.wright]

It doesn't make any difference, I just chose to have it on. Why not?

[@richardgardner4252]

@@sethc.art.wright Hi Seth, thank you for replying. I was just pointing it out because it didnt make any sense to me that since your camera is stable, and since IS element is still active, it is better to turn the IS off. Here is what Canon representative have to say about having IS and tripod: "First off, let's be clear -- any discussion about Image Stabilization on a tripod refers ONLY to a truly rock-solid tripod, on a totally firm surface without vibrations from passing traffic and so on. In many real-world situations, we're using tripods and other supports in conditions that really aren't totally solid. A good test, before discussing the question any further: the next time you're mounted on a tripod, turn your camera's Live View on, and magnify the LCD monitor image to its greatest setting. It's sometimes amazing how much shake and movement there really is, even on a tripod. The point is pretty clear. In any situation where you're not truly rock-steady, whether you're mounted on a tripod, or certainly a monopod, using Image Stabilization normally makes a great deal of sense. However, since the launch of the first Canon Image Stabilized lens (the EF 75-300mm IS zoom lens, from 1995), Canon engineers have recommended switching IS off if and when you're mounted on a tripod. Again, this pre-supposes it's a truly rock-solid tripod. Canon's optical Image Stabilization has definitely evolved since its launch in 1995, and there are now different versions for lightweight, less-expensive lenses (like the EF-S 18-55mm standard zoom for compact cameras) than the more advanced IS units we see in (for example) L-series super-telephoto lenses. Basically, current Canon EF and EF-S lenses can detect when there's a total absence of "shake" (in other words, solidly tripod mounted), and internally disable the Image Stabilization if it's left on. But in some lenses -- and it varies, depending on the IS design in the lens in question -- the moveable IS lens elements aren't locked and centered when the IS is disabled this way, and can sometimes be susceptible to slight movement during exposure. On such lenses, physically switching IS off with the switch on the lens allows the lens to lock and center these elements. Again, there are variables -- too many to get into here, since it depends on which lens model, which version (in other words, how old is the lens in question), and so on. But the bottom line remains pretty simple. It's safer to just switch IS off if you know there will be a complete absence of camera and lens movement during exposure. One other thing... Canon's optical Image Stabilization is designed as a tool to get sharper pictures at "normal" shutter speeds. While the slow-speed limits may vary slightly from one lens model to another, Image Stabilization is disabled if the system detects a shutter speed longer than roughly one full second. So for longer night-time exposures, expect to just turn IS off, because it won't have an effect in your final pictures. Hope this helps clarify the questions about Canon's optical Image Stabilization when cameras are tripod mounted."

[@bngr_bngr]

@@richardgardner4252 I keep IS on all the time. Especially if I’m taking the lens on and off the tripod. Or using it on a monopod.

[@sandyrane_stargazer]

I'm good at version i for now. May i know which lens hood support version one as i got it used with no hood. Thanks!!

[@sethc.art.wright]

Sorry I don't know about lens hoods at all haha. It probably says on Canon's website somewhere.

[@BackboneNF]

Maybe your Version 1 is worn out. It is not normal that this is so unfocused.

[@sethc.art.wright]

I don't have it anymore, but maybe? You can't argue with the colors though. There was a significant difference. The version 1 isn't unfocused, it just isn't as sharp as the version 2. I'm zooming in quite to examine these photos. And as you'll see at F4 both lenses are comparable in sharpness. The second version just does a better job at 2.8.

[@BackboneNF]

@@sethc.art.wright thanks!

[@sethc.art.wright]

@@BackboneNF For sure man! I think the version two is a great upgrade if you can get it!

[@luigibro2340]

Im getting the version one soon and I think it'll be good for me since im relatively new what do you think?

[@sethc.art.wright]

Yes dude! The version one changed the whole way I shoot and set me up for the future. Learn to use it, then when the time comes, get the next lens if you think it will benefit you :)

[@luigibro2340]

@@sethc.art.wright thank you and I will get it this fridayyy

[@sethc.art.wright]

@@luigibro2340 Sweet man you're gonna love it!!

[@stephencosta6814]

I just bought version one in mint condition on OfferUp for $350..👍👍🙏🏻

[@malinak0578]

There's literally a full detailed comparison of the version I vs version II already on youtube (from November 2021 I think, channel called MiDtones). I decided for my purchase on that two months ago but your review rocks too! :)

[@sethc.art.wright]

Yeah I actually just saw his video yesterday! I do think he put more effort into his haha. But I did mine shortly after and hadn't seen his yet, and compared mostly what I thought was important and practical for my uses of the lens.

[@ritrattoaziendale]

The sharper is the very first one, without IS

[@billy9506]

Kinda - stuff - umm - like - holy crap.... Amazing.

[@sethc.art.wright]

😂😂

[@omfmedia4488]

More vids like this bro

[@sethc.art.wright]

Coming at you soon!! With beautiful models!

[@christopherleecowan]

Who cares which one is sharper they are both flat as hell with no 3d image coming out of them. They are for convenience only not for quality. Yes I still have a few modern zooms only for certain situations but not for making the best image.

[@sethc.art.wright]

What? Haha.

[@stephencosta6814]

They are not bad at all. They are excellent. Yes, the primes are very expensive. One is phenomenal, but so is the price tag.