70-200 f2.8

[simon_t1]

<p>What is the difference between the <strong>70-200 f2.8 non IS</strong> and the <strong>70-200 f2.8 IS mkI</strong>, apart from having <strong>IS</strong>. Especially image quality.<br>

Thanks Simon</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Price, new optical formula, dust & water resistant construction and circular aperture.</p>

<p>Someone else can answer your question about the "image quality". I own the f/4 IS version and used to own the f/4 non IS version.</p>

[rjtully]

<p>Assuming you mean by mk1, (the original 70-200 2.8), there is no difference in IQ in any article that I have read. I have the f4 and the 2.8 non-is and they are extremely close. Have not compared at pixel level. I have read that the F4 has a slight edge on the 2.8 as far as IQ is concerned. Don't really care if there is an edge. The F4 will be up for sale soon anyway.</p>

[simon_t1]

<p>Thanks for your replies.<br>

Richard,<br>

When you mean extremely close, which one in your opinion wins in terms of result.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Simon,</p>

<p>This is an often debated topic. The IQ between all four older 70-200's is so close as to not be a factor in deciding, technique, or lack of it, will far outweigh any IQ advantage from any of them. By technique I mean, if you are not going to use a good tripod, manual focus with live view, a cable release and mirror lock up then forget the infinitesimally small differences between them.</p>

<p>The way to choose between those four is much better made by, price, whether you feel you would benefit from IS (I can imagine few who wouldn't), size, weight etc, these are all more important than IQ differences.</p>

<p>Now for the fifth, the new f2.8 IS, if you have the money and the need then get it, it is supposed to be a step forward. But, answer the other questions first.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Check out the review/s from the-digital-picture: <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Review</a><br>

Aditionally, you can check out more links available from that page / site.</p>

[bill_morrow1]

<p>The above link indicates 3-stop IS. Not sure if that is <strong>third</strong> generation also. What<br>

generation (number of stops if more correct) is the first 70-200 2.8, does anyone know<br>

Thanks...</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>MkI is good for three stops, MkII is good for four stops.</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>Nothing you nor your clients will notice.</p>

[rjtully]

<p>Simon, just as others have stated, there is not a noticeable difference. There are good points to each. The IQ is not to be considered though since they are too close to call. The weight and size on the other hand may make a difference. I really like the F4 for the times I need to carry the 70-200 around a lot. It is MUCH lighter than the 2.8. I like the 2.8 for the extra stop. They both have their uses. You can't go wrong with either. Depends on YOUR needs. As for the IS, definitely it is a plus but in good light for sports and other moving subjects, IS is not a real help since you are probably panning or moving the camera in some other direction anyway.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>The above link indicates 3-stop IS. Not sure if that is <b>third</b> generation also. What<br>

generation (number of stops if more correct) is the first 70-200 2.8, does anyone know</cite>

 

<p>It's not really useful to refer to generations of IS any more because various features and capabilities are mixed and matched in various lenses. It's more useful to discuss specific features and capabilities. Here's what Canon claims for the first-generation 70-200/2.8 IS:</p>

 

<ul>

<li><b>Effectiveness:</b> 3 stops (as opposed to 1.5-2 stops in most older lenses and as much as 4 stops in some newer lenses)

<li><b>Startup time:</b> about half a second; most older IS lenses are claimed to take about a second to reach full effectiveness

<li><b>Panning (mode 2):</b> Available; there's a switch on the lens to control whether it uses mode 1 (the original IS mode, which attempts to correct for all movement) and mode 2 (which attempts to correct motion perpendicular to the direction in which you're panning)

<li><b>Tripod detection:</b> If it detects you're using a tripod, it shuts down the actuators that drive the IS elements, so it's safe to use on a tripod, unlike some of the old IS lenses. But the manual recommends turning IS off when using a tripod, because the motion detection hardware still runs, consuming power and reducing your battery life. (Note that the IS superteles have a different type of tripod detection: if they detect a tripod, they switch to a special mode which attempts to detect and counteract mirror slap.)

</ul>

 

<cite>As for the IS, definitely it is a plus but in good light for sports and other moving subjects, IS is not a real help since you are probably panning or moving the camera in some other direction anyway.</cite>

 

<p>Mode 2 is for panning. If (for instance) you're following a subject which is moving horizontally, mode 2 will correct for vertical shaking.</p>

[jan_kowalski6]

<p>cannot contribute anything on differences between the non IS and the IS versions, as I have used only the non IS version so far. personally I think the IQ is nearly perfect, I wish the bokeh were not so busy, but thats rather minor.<br>

BUT<br>

apparently you cannot af-calibrate this lens per software only (as with the newer IS versions), you have to open it and re-solider some connectors inside . thats of course only in case the lens will not fous correctly with your given canon camera (back or front focus).<br>

unfortunately the chances are, it wont.<br>

see also my post on canon AF ordeal.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Don't worry about having to open up and resolder connections on any Canon lens, although maybe jan's post (this is his first day on P.net) here is giving us some hints about why he has so much difficulty where others don't.</p>

<p>I think as a rule, the later and newer lenses will normally be "better" than older designs in some sense that makes Canon happy. There is always the chance, that the "better" means cheaper for Canon to manufacture, but I think that the empirical evidence suggests that is not their only motivation since reviews typically show improvement.</p>

<p>However, "better" is not just IQ alone, it can refer to a whole series of dimensions of lens design including things like aberrations, vignetting, and a raft of others.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>see also my post on canon AF ordeal.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jan: I've read your brief posting history and I can only conclude that you are full of it.</p>

[andrew_aylett]

<p>I have had 70-200 non IS and IS versions , I am now using the non IS version as I never use IS (even on my 300 2.8 which I always use hand held) , I have noticed no real difference between the earlier and later lens , whatever version you are using you will always get superb images if you are using you equipment properly .</p>