What's the difference ?

Aakajx · Dec 26, 2013

What's the difference, apart from the price? For the 70-200mm 2.8.

SCraig · Dec 26, 2013

The one on the right is an f/4 lens whereas the other two are both f/2.8 lenses. Other than that I have no idea.

Aakajx · Dec 26, 2013

Yeah no I'm just talking about the 2.8.

Juga · Dec 26, 2013

SCraig · Dec 26, 2013

Aakajx said:
Yeah no I'm just talking about the 2.8.

Sorry, I see that in the text of your post now. I didn't notice it originally. My bad.

Aakajx · Dec 26, 2013

There's a few lens in camera house that are the same text but a hole different price.. I just can't work out why.

ronlane · Dec 26, 2013

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is the newest in the stable and has image stabilization (IS), where as the $1,600 f/2.8 does not have IS. The f/4 is a good one if you shoot in conditions that have light, ie, daylight. The non-IS and the f/4 both can be found cheaper than this on the used market.

shefjr · Dec 26, 2013

I'm not a cannon guy but, the first one says IS which I assume means image stabilization which would cost more and the second one does not have it.

Ron beat me to it. Lol!

Aakajx · Dec 26, 2013

Oh ok. Well thank you guys for clearing it up for me

o hey tyler · Dec 26, 2013

I'm surprised no one pointed out that the lenses in question do not have the MK II designation. So if they are the MK I versions and the prices are in USD, they are drastically inflated. A new MK II On B and H is around two grand.

ronlane · Dec 26, 2013

o hey tyler said:
I'm surprised no one pointed out that the lenses in question do not have the MK II designation. So if they are the MK I versions and the prices are in USD, they are drastically inflated. A new MK II On B and H is around two grand.

Looks like the site the OP is looking at is Australian. Not sure the conversion rate there but that could be the difference you are seeing Tyler.

LShooter · Dec 31, 2013

IS and if you're gonna spend the money, get IS.

I have to say though, I've owned both the 2.8 IS and the f/4 IS and the 4 is sharper (which is well documented). If you really need the 2.8 for bokeh or low light, that's different. But again, with today's ISO performance, you can usually do what you need with the f/4 and pick up a 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 for bokeh purposes.