70-200 2.8 IS Versus Non-IS

[dandaluzphotography]

Hey Guys,

A friend of mine has the IS version of this lens and according to what he's read, aside from the IS on this lens the optics are better than the non-IS version. I'm thinking of buying this lens, but my thinking is that if the only difference between the IS and non-IS version is the IS, I don't need it. I really don't need the IS as I'd be using the lens for studio work.

Does anyone have any experience with both lenses? The difference in price is about 1K so I want to be sure it's better. If it's only slightly better, I can live without it, but if it's much better, I might have to think about it.

My friend showed me a portrait shot he took with the IS lens on a 7D and at 200%, the image was tack sharp right out of the camera (f/8, 1/160th, ISO 100). If I can get quality like that with the non-IS version, I'll go with that.

Thanks,
Danny

 

[Derrel]

Honestly, I believe that the serious testing sites have shown that the non-IS version of the f/2.8 lens is a slightly better optical performer. ALso, I believe that the 70-200 f/4-L IS version is slightly better than the 70-200/2.8 version with IS. From my own ownership, I think the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS-USM model is NOT as sharp at the longer end as the newer, Nikkor 70-200 VR, nor as sharp as it really "ought to be"...if you shoot some landscapes with it, you'll see that at the longer focal length settings, it just does not deliver the resolving power you would expect; that is why Canon had to RE-ENGINEER the lens, and bring it up to current standards, with a Mark II version, like Nikon released. The original Canon 70-200 2.8 IS version dates to around 1997-98 design-wise and 1999 for date of first production. It had a good 11-year run, until being supplanted by a newer, better design last year.

The Mark II version of the f/2.8 model with IS seems to have corrected the softness at the longer end that was the weakest area of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS-USM model. The Mark II version also works much better with teleconverters than any of the earlier models. Nikon re-did its 1.4x and 2.0x tele-converters with aspherical elements,and MUCH,much,much better performance on its 70-200, as well as its 200 f/2 VR and 300/2.8 VR models. Canon has done the same thing with its newest Mark II f/2.8 IS USM lens. Today, people are getting the benefits of much better performance with a manufacturer's teleconverter, and that's an area where the consumers are reaping the benefits of newer, and truly better optical designs.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I've got the 70-200 f/4 non-IS version and I love the sharpness I get with it. I'm really leaning towards the 2.8 non-IS version.

Danny

 

[Derrel]

I think the f/2.8, non-IS version is probably the best all-around "value", given the price of the new Mark II model, the price of the new f/4 IS model, and the price of the older f/2.8 IS model. A good review of the lens you're considering is here:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I think the f/2.8, non-IS version is probably the best all-around "value", given the price of the new Mark II model, the price of the new f/4 IS model, and the price of the older f/2.8 IS model. A good review of the lens you're considering is here:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Thanks!

 

[Hardrock]

I personally was disappointed with the sharpness of the 70-200 F2.8 IS USM on my 50D at f2.8 and 200mm it required a good bit of sharpening. Im not sure if you shoot full frame or not but its supposed to be better on a full frame body. Although I have no experience with that lens and a FF body. It was just in a review that I read. I say get the 70-200 f4 IS or save for the MkII version. Hope this helps.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I got the 2.8 IS mk1 version. I love it. The 2.8 and the IS make it soo much heavier though but I dont mind it.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I'm shooting on a 60D and I have read that all L lenses are made for FF bodies. You still get great images on cropped sensor, but supposedly they're better on a FF body.

Here's my dilemma. Do I really need an IS Lens? Whether 2.8 or 4? Like I said before, I'd mostly be using it for studio work, so I wouldn't use it wide open. I don't use 4 wide open.

 

[rabeih]

I think the f/2.8, non-IS version is probably the best all-around "value", given the price of the new Mark II model, the price of the new f/4 IS model, and the price of the older f/2.8 IS model. A good review of the lens you're considering is here:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis

So the IS thing is only for video shooting, right?