Here’s another very common question- If you already own the mk1 version of a 70-200mm f/2.8, should you bother buying the mk2 version?

My Ramblings:

Having tested every Nikon f/2.8 zoom since the old push-pull 80-200mm to the newest 70-200 f/4 VR, I have got to say that there isn’t much sharpness to be gained by going to the mk2. In fact the f/4 VR is the sharpest of them all, if you care about sharpness most. To be honest, after thorough testing I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 mk1 for wedding photojournalism.

Why? Not just because it’s “more than sharp enough”, but also admittedly because I hate the weight and I try not to use my 70-200 whenever possible. If I really, really need the extra resolution; say for example I get a D800 some day instead of my current beloved setup of dual-D700′s, …well then I would much rather turn to an 85 or 135 prime for “the ultimate sharpness”, than to a 70-200.

So, that’s just me. I love what 70-200mm affords me while shooting church ceremonies and reception toasts, but other than that I try to minimize its use and grab my primes instead…

Therefore, I suppose if someone were absolutely fine with dragging around a 70-200 all day, to both weddings and portrait sessions, then the mk2 would be a good buy. More important than any sharpness upgrade, it has a little bit FASTER FOCUSING, and the VR is a little bit better too. Those are honestly the much bigger differences. Compared to these advantages, I barely noticed a difference in sharpness..

CANON SHOOTER DISCLAIMER: The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 situation is a little different. Their older f/2.8 L lenses (both IS and non IS) were never really amazingly sharp, they were mostly just “usable”. Yes, innumerable pros loved these lenses and used them daily to make tons of money. However that doesn’t make them the best lenses ever, they were simply the only option and they got the job done.

Oppositely, Nikon has been turning out ridiculously sharp f/2.8 zooms since the 80-200mm f/2.8 with SWM. (silent wave motor, the new type of AF)

So if you are a Canon user I do highly recommend considering the upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS mk2. The mk1 is really only “awesome” if you plan to stick with it as a photojournalist lens that you shoot mostly in mRAW (the 10-12 megapixel range) and certainly not with whatever 40+ megapixel behemoth is just around the corner. At that point, the older 70-200 2.8′s are going to start showing their resolving limits. Of course the same goes with Nikon- If you have the Nikon D800 instead of my D700′s, you could see a bigger difference between the mk1 and mk2 f/2.8 VR zooms.

Although again personally, Canon or Nikon it doesn’t matter: I’d still rather have an 85 and 135 prime for those situations when I really really need the most resolution. For me personally the 70-200mm is purely a candid / documentary photojournalist tool, not an all-day multipurpose type thing. I know that many probably don’t feel the same way as me, but shoot enough triple-headers and you just might…

Take care, and feel free to let me know if you have any other questions!
=Matt=

PS: Support my addiction to giving free advice – Donate via Paypal, or by shopping at B&H.