Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS L USM Lens OR Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II L USM Lens

[RyanBraidley]

Hi there!
I'm wanting tobuy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II L USM Lens for wedding & portrait photography in particular. I've spoken to a number of people about them but only one has suggested I buy the IS version. It makes sense to buy it for sharper images, but due to budget can I manage without it and is there that much noticeable difference?

I've priced some second hand IS lenses on ebay and could buy what look like excellent condition for sale at the same/similiar price to new without IS - should I buy the better second hand model or the new cheaper model??

Cheers.

 

[bratkinson]

As a newly joined member of the 'senile citizens' community, I have learned the hard way to get IS on every lens I purchase. I do a lot of low-light indoor photography and just fast-enough exposures to stop subject movement is a necessity. Problem is, I can't stay completely steady that long any more! Getting old really sucks! For the 3 non-IS lenses I own, unless I'm shooting outdoors in daylight, it's monopod or tripod time! Now if Canon would only make the 135 f2L with IS, I'd buy it without hesitation!

 

[MLeeK]

Hi there!
I'm wanting tobuy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II L USM Lens for wedding & portrait photography in particular. I've spoken to a number of people about them but only one has suggested I buy the IS version. It makes sense to buy it for sharper images, but due to budget can I manage without it and is there that much noticeable difference?

I've priced some second hand IS lenses on ebay and could buy what look like excellent condition for sale at the same/similiar price to new without IS - should I buy the better second hand model or the new cheaper model??

Cheers.

How about the 70-200 f/2.8L IS version 1? In wedding work I wouldn't want to skimp on the IS.

 

[TheBiles]

Hi there!
I'm wanting tobuy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II L USM Lens for wedding & portrait photography in particular. I've spoken to a number of people about them but only one has suggested I buy the IS version. It makes sense to buy it for sharper images, but due to budget can I manage without it and is there that much noticeable difference?

I've priced some second hand IS lenses on ebay and could buy what look like excellent condition for sale at the same/similiar price to new without IS - should I buy the better second hand model or the new cheaper model??

Cheers.

How about the 70-200 f/2.8L IS version 1? In wedding work I wouldn't want to skimp on the IS.

It's much softer than the version II. I'd definitely say to get the II if you can afford it. Absolutely fantastic lens.

 

[RyanBraidley]

Hi - thanks for replying to my question; you have convinced me to buy the IS version - the wife won't be happy!!

 

[Professional]

I have version 1 and just bought version 2 about 1 week ago, the difference is noticeable, that version 2 is sharper, but my version 1 is not bad, it is soft because i didn't send it for service since years, sure if i do send it for service then it will be great lens again and not much difference to version 2, but i will not send it for service because i offer it for sale, the buyer should send it for service if he/she wants.

 

[ScubaDude]

There isn't a non-IS version II.

 

[jamesdak]

Hmmm, for your need IS is critical so don't skimp on that. I have the older version of the lens and I am not sure why others are calling it soft. Mine certainly isn't and I'm a guy who perfers primes to zooms for critical sharpness and such. My issue is how the lens renders the scene with a plastic look so often. Not sure what that is going to do to skin tones and stuff doing wedding work.

 

[fjrabon]

as ScubaDude stated, OP must be confused, because the non-IS version of the lens he's talking about simply doesn't exist.

@james I don't think anybody believes the old version was 'soft', but it was much less predictably sharp across the entire range of apertures and focal lengths than the newer MkII version. The difference at 200mm and f/2.8 (the biggest reason why people buy this lens anyway) is certainly noticeable.

 

[jamesdak]

as ScubaDude stated, OP must be confused, because the non-IS version of the lens he's talking about simply doesn't exist.

@james I don't think anybody believes the old version was 'soft', but it was much less predictably sharp across the entire range of apertures and focal lengths than the newer MkII version. The difference at 200mm and f/2.8 (the biggest reason why people buy this lens anyway) is certainly noticeable.

I ran a field test of mine once against my Mamiya 200/2.8 APO and Leica R 180/3.4 APO a couple of years ago. All lenses mounted on my 5D. All lenses mounted on my 7D. The zoom did lose but it was against to outstanding pieces of prime glass. But mounted on a tripod with the IS off and manually focusing still got quite good results across the board. It just renders the contrast or something funny which gives that plastic look. I'd suspect some issues with it are technique and maybe focusing errors wide open more than an actually failing of the lens. I do like your comments about the new version. Just don't use my current one enough to justify the upgrade.

 

[fjrabon]

I ran a field test of mine once against my Mamiya 200/2.8 APO and Leica R 180/3.4 APO a couple of years ago. All lenses mounted on my 5D. All lenses mounted on my 7D. The zoom did lose but it was against to outstanding pieces of prime glass. But mounted on a tripod with the IS off and manually focusing still got quite good results across the board. It just renders the contrast or something funny which gives that plastic look. I'd suspect some issues with it are technique and maybe focusing errors wide open more than an actually failing of the lens. I do like your comments about the new version. Just don't use my current one enough to justify the upgrade.

We have both the MkI and MkII versions in our lens pool and after using both a lot, you notice the difference. But yeah a LOT of it is the MkII version is a lot more accurate focusing in a fast moving environment. I honestly believe the MkII is the BEST standard telephoto out there. Easily. Does the difference jump off the print? Nah, not really. Is it noticeable to an experienced naked eye? Yeah.