Canon 70-200mm 2.8 is vs non is

[SHaller]

I know the discussion about the benefits of having IS, but on all of the threads I read I can't seem to find anything on the IQ. I'm pretty sure that they are optically the same, but before I go ahead and spend the money I just wanted to be 100% sure.

 

[Juice]

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS, but I haven't tried it without the IS on (except tripod shooting). I'll have to do some of my own tests and figure it out. If you can wait a day or so, I'll get back to you.

 

[SHaller]

We'll im actually referring to the two different lenses the 70-200 2.8 usm vs the 70-200 2.8 is usm. I wanted to make sure that they were optically the same. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

 

[DisasterDan]

We'll im actually referring to the two different lenses the 70-200 2.8 usm vs the 70-200 2.8 is usm.

Now im confused...

But! If you have the money than get the IS, if not get the non IS.

 

[chammer]

I don't think it's going to much matter. You will probably not notice the difference between any of the 4 (f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS) except under controlled testing, and even then maybe not unless you're PhotoZone, DxO Mark, etc. who do this sort of testing professionally all the time.

The 70-200's (for both Canon and Nikon) get rave reviews for a reason. You're not going to go wrong with any of them, but I agree with what's stated above...get the IS version if you can afford to. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

 

[DerekSalem]

I don't think it's going to much matter. You will probably not notice the difference between any of the 4 (f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS) except under controlled testing, and even then maybe not unless you're PhotoZone, DxO Mark, etc. who do this sort of testing professionally all the time.

The 70-200's (for both Canon and Nikon) get rave reviews for a reason. You're not going to go wrong with any of them, but I agree with what's stated above...get the IS version if you can afford to. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Well you're right on the fact that they all get rave reviews...the IQ is usually above mostly all other telephotos offered in the range, however they are absolutely *not* the same in terms of IQ.

Here's the overall arc starting with worst IQ (relative) to highest:
f4 - f2.8IS - f2.8 - f4IS - f2.8IS II

The difference from the non-IQ 2.8 to the IQ model isn't huge, unless you're talking about the newer model (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II). This model has arguably the highest IQ in the range available (surpassing some of the primes) and the difference is *easily* noticeable.

 

[SHaller]

I don't think it's going to much matter. You will probably not notice the difference between any of the 4 (f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS) except under controlled testing, and even then maybe not unless you're PhotoZone, DxO Mark, etc. who do this sort of testing professionally all the time.

The 70-200's (for both Canon and Nikon) get rave reviews for a reason. You're not going to go wrong with any of them, but I agree with what's stated above...get the IS version if you can afford to. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

At the moment I don't have a lot of money to spend towards this lens because I'm working towards and underwater set up. I plan on using the this lens mostly for sports, so I really don't need is and the good thing about nice glass is that it holds its value. If I decide i need is down the road, I shouldn't have a problem getting most of my money back for it.

 

[Stryker]

I was able to test the lens you are interested in. To get a clear, crisp shot, you have to adjust to f/4. I would suggest you get the 70-200 L f/4 IS USM. Its the second best lens for that focal lengths, the 70-200 L f/2.8 IS USM II being the best.

Just my 2 cents worth

Cheers,

Mel

 

[Derrel]

As I recall, the f/2.8 non-IS model is slightly better optically than the f/2.8 IS model that Canon produced from the 1990's to 2009. And that the absolutely best lens in the 70-200 series is the new, f/2.8 IS, Mark II model.

 

[Hollywoodgt]

Good post I was wondering the same thing. the difference in price is around a thousand dollars. I'm a newbie so it probably wouldn't be that much of a difference,except the IS would compensate for me not being as stable as a veteran shooter. I'm going to put some time in shooting and then order out then 70-200 ef 2.8L II I found one for less than $2000.00 which appears to be a good deal (slightly used)

 

[DerekSalem]

As I recall, the f/2.8 non-IS model is slightly better optically than the f/2.8 IS model that Canon produced from the 1990's to 2009. And that the absolutely best lens in the 70-200 series is the new, f/2.8 IS, Mark II model.

Aye I wrote it in the little thing wrong. The non-IS version is better than the original IS version.

 

[SHaller]

Thanks guys. The non IS it is.