Canon 70-200 F4 IS USM / Canon 70-200 F2.8 NON IS USM

Southtown57 · Dec 22, 2011

Been trying to find any tests comparing the two. I've heard the 70-200 F4 IS is sharper than the 70-200 F2.8 non IS lens. Is this true? Also would the 2.8 non IS produce good hand held images if the pics were taken outside in adequate lighting? (such as wildlife/landscape pics). I'm just having a hard time deciding between the two. I would really love the new canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II but at around 2100 dollars I just don't know if I can justify the price since I'm not a professional photographer and just do this as a hobby.

Thanks for the input!

analog.universe · Dec 22, 2011

Welcome to Photozone! has very nice lens tests and reviews, it's often where I go for comparisons. I'd be surprised if they haven't reviewed all the lenses you're asking about.

Aside from that though, have you considered the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS? From what I hear it's almost as sharp as the Canon and only like $1300...

Southtown57 · Dec 22, 2011

Thanks for the link. Does anyone know if you can still buy the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM version 1 or are they all second hand now? And would it be a better choice than the non IS 2.8?

Rephargotohp · Dec 22, 2011

The Mark 1 is only used now, unless some store just happened to have one laying around. The MKII is sharper.
There isn't as huge a difference between the old IS and non IS 2.8

I would go with the 70-200 4.0 l NON IS...and a Monopod ( I already have)

MLeeK · Dec 22, 2011

Yes, you can take good shots with a lens without IS. There was good photography long before there was IS/OS/VR... How? make sure your shutter speed is faster than the reciprocal length of your lens. So faster than 1/200 at 200mm. If you are REALLY shaky then faster than 1/400. OR use a monopod or tripod.

I own the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and it's sharp as a tack and fast on the focus. I LOVE it.

Southtown57 · Dec 22, 2011

Hmm I'll look into the Sigma. I just would like to stick with the "L" glass though for the weather sealing.

GeorgieGirl · Dec 22, 2011

I have the IS. For a lens this size/length I personally don't walk around without the IS. If I was on a tripod (I dont have a Mono-Pod) for its use, then yes, go without it.