Is there much of a difference: Canon 70-200 2.8 IS version I and version II

[snowjunkie]

Looking at purchasing a lightly used Canon 70-200 2.8L IS lens, and was wondering if there is a significant difference between USM I and II?? I have a seller with a nicely priced version I, but should I just spend the extra money for version II?

I appreciate any input you all can provide.

Cheers

[systemoverblow'd]

faster focus, better IS and better IQ. Not to take anything away from the VI. I was VERY happy with mine. The thing rocked. But, if you have the dough, the VII is defintiely better. If you had them next to each other giving them the pepsi challenge, you would see the difference, but without a frame of reference I think you would be hard pressed to hate on the version I.

[snowjunkie]

So you would recommend spending an extra $600-800 to get the version 2?

[dfinn]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1268538

I don't have a v1 to compare to but the v2 is an amazing lens.

[systemoverblow'd]

So you would recommend spending an extra $600-800 to get the version 2?

If money is the issue, I think the v1 is an awesome lens. I had zero issues with it and mine was almost 10 years old. If money doesn't matter than I would go with the V2. It is better, but it is also more expensive. It's all in what you want to spend. It is the most popular Canon tele for a reason. But again, the V1 is no slouch. I think you have to weigh cost vs benefits for your own self. Some would be stoked on the V1 while others would spare no expense on the V2.

Personally, I dumped my V1 for the much less expensive f/4 non IS. So everyone is different.