Canon 70-200 f2.8 non-IS vs IS

[moshe1]

I'm considering buying the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens, but have heard that

it is not as sharp as the non-IS version. Have any of you had any

personal experiences with these lenses or seen any tests that verify

any differences. I'm aware that several tests of the 300 f4 IS have

shown that it is opticially inferior to the non-IS version.

[ilia]

My IS is just as sharp as Non-IS I used for years. Maybe sharper...

[bill_goldman]

I don't know where you get your information because I have heard just the opposite. E.G., My understanding is that the 70-200 IS version is sharper than the non IS version. In addition, it has a number of improvements; namely. better weather sealing, a near circular diaphragm, improved lens coating and slightly closer focusing.

 

I have owned the non IS version for a number of years and it is a superb lens in terms of sharpness, contrast and build quality. If I had an absolute need for the IS feature and could afford it, I would replace my non IS version with the new IS one. Perhaps I will when the price comes down some more.

 

I am well aware of the value of the IS feature as I also own the 300/4L IS and it is extremely sharp. I doubt if the old, discontinued, non-IS version is sharper, regardless of what you have heard.

 

I refer you to a hands-on test and comparison review of the 70-200/2.8L IS versus the non-IS version:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200IS.shtml

[simon_hodgson]

I tested both of the above len's and couldn't really see any difference in sharpness. They both produced excellent results, but when it came down to it, I couldn't justify spending the extra $$$. I've hand held the non IS at 1/200sec f5.6, at some recent motor racing in Australia, and the results were excellent. I'm yet to get any camera shake with this lens and this is also with a 2x attached to it! I am so happy with the results but if I had the extra cash I would still lean towards the IS. I have to say most of the time when I'm shooting sport I do use a mono pod though.

 

I've also found that with the f2.8 you are often shooting 4000 or even 1/8000 so camera shake is not even an issue.

 

I think what ever way you go, you will be extremely happy with your results they are an excellent lens.

[moshe1]

Thanks for the responses. I really want the IS version, because of the IS but also because of the weather seals. I have the EOS 1-v and I plan to use the camera and lenses, including the new 24-70 f2.8 for snowmobile action shots where handheld and weather seals are both important.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Canon says the 70-200/2.8 IS lens is sharper than the old lens. Most people agree, but there's a significant minority who find the old lens better. You'll find the same with the 300/4 you mentioned - many tests say that IS one is at least as good, while some say it's worse (though photodo seems to be the only test that shows a big difference), and most users report they're fairly close one way or the other.</p>

 

<p>Either of the 70-200/2.8 lenses is a superb lens; I very much doubt you'll be disappointed no matter which you get. There's quite a price difference, though, so my suggestion would be to figure out if IS will be useful for you.</p>

 

<p>If I were to get either of these lenses, it would definitely be the IS lens - I love IS on my 28-135, and I wish my 100-300 USM had IS (I also wish it had better optics, which is why I will eventually replace it with something with an L on it).</p>

[jay_.]

The 70-200/2.8-IS is a lens to die for.

[moshe1]

I couldn't wait, I just ordered the IS from B&H..!!

[chip]

Bill, I have owned and used several of the EF 300 4L and EF 300 4L IS lenses and have personally purchased two EF 300 2.8L lenses (the first fell overboard with an EOS 1n and booster mounted to it in 600ft. of seawater during a yacht race, I almost cried). The EF 300 2.8L is by far the sharpest of the three lenses. The EF 300 4L is close to the 300 2.8 but not quite as chrispy and the stop is a short comming IMO. The EF 300 4L IS takes the back seat in image quality but it does have mode 2 IS and for a sports shooter it almost makes it worth giving up the extra image quality, but just almost. Another downside to the IS lens is the battery drain, I had to carry 2 extra battery packs for the PB-E1 boosters when using the IS lens all day at the racetrack, bummer! Anyway I kept the EF 300 2.8L and sold off the other two EF 300 4L's. I do sort of miss the EF 300 4L IS for the IS though, but not quite enough to buy another one.

[bradleyphillip]

Robert,

 

I have both the non-IS and the IS version of the 70-200; I the first 70-200 IS I evaluated wasn't as sharp as the non-IS 70-200 I have. I evaluated a second one and it was on par.

 

The IS versions of the lens are slightly less contrasty.

 

Chip,

 

Ow, that hurts just thinking about it.

 

You might want to consider the 300/2.8 IS... get the best of both worlds, and (I dare say) improved (!) image quality.

 

Brad