IS vs. Non-IS

[matt.garnett]

Does the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II take better (in any way) pictures than the non IS version at a high shutter speed?

 

[nickzou]

I think they say that IS is basically unnoticeable (and that you should probably just turn it off) at shutter speed faster than 400 (or 600, I forget but something like that).

 

[Rephargotohp]

In tests for sharpness, irrespective of IS, The IS MKII is clearly sharper especially at wider apertures, No question at f/2.8

 

[Big Mike]

I agree with Rephargotohp. The IS won't make a difference at high enough shutter speeds, but when the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS was upgraded to the mk II version, there were improvements in image quality.

 

[matt.garnett]

So in your opinion, is it enough of a difference that you think I should pay an extra $500-$600 for it? I mean, if I'm going to be using this lens for the next 10 years I don't want to skimp on one to get by with the much older generation.

 

[Big Mike]

For me, it came down to knowing that if I had 'cheaped out' and gone with the F4 version or the non-IS versions, I would eventually regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon. So I went with the F2.8 IS.

 

[penfolderoldo]

I currently use the non-IS 2.8, made a conscious decision to go to that from the original IS version, as sharpness was better, and the extra weight / size was more of a factor for me than having IS. Haven't tried the mark II IS version, but I gather it's better than the non-IS, and considerably better than the mark I.

 

[Overread19 7]

The MII makes a big difference in optical quality, especially wide open at f2.8 and at the long 200mm end of the lens. I've even read of some people selling primes like the 135mm f2 L to find a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII.

Honestly the choice is yours and the original lens already has many years of professional level work behind it and still is a pro grade lens. In the right hands it will perform very well and to be honest my reason for pushing an upgrade from the original to the new was because I was pushing the lens with a 1.4TC often and wanted to also extend to being able to use a 2*TC (which makes the 70-200mm f2.8 IS MII about equal with the 100-400mm L in terms of optical quality and performance).
If I were limiting the lenses use only to 70-200mm I'd probably still be running with the original.

However its down to you - you can see comparisons and test charts online and you can try out lenses in shops/camera clubs local to yourself and make your own mind up. Either one is a solid investment (when I sold my original version its second hand price was what I paid for it new originally - so its certainly no slouch) and either one will serve you well - if you want the best of the best the 70-200mm f2.8 IS MII is the way to go.