70 200 is 2.8

[roberto_carli]

I want to know some impressions on new 70 200 is 2.8.In my opinion

the AF mode is very slowier than older 70 200 2.8 not is.

Is there anyone that tested both lenses ( 70 200 2.8 is and not )

Thks

[bill_goldman]

I own the original (non-IS) version of the 70-200/2.8 and have not handled the new IS version so I can not comment on relative AF speeds, although I doubt the new one is slower. It may seem so because the IS takes a second to kick in when you first press the shutter release.

 

For a comparison test of the two versions, see the following:

 

http://www.luminouslandscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml

 

The test does not comment on relative AF speeds but is more concerned with sharpness and the effectiveness of the IS.

[aappelphotography]

The above provided link is incorrect! It leads somewhere, where my

Anti-Virus Toolkit starts SCREAMING....!!

 

The correct URL is:

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

 

Greetz,

André

[yakim_peled1]

http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,70-200mm,f-2.8L,IS,USM/PRD_104368_3128crx.aspx

[photobyalan.com]

I own the 70-200 2.8 IS and previously used the 70-200 f/4. I can report that the autofocus is superb. The autofocus is so fast on both of these lenses that I could not tell the difference. If the IS version is any slower, then it is in the small-fraction-of-a-second range. I don't believe the 2.8 non-IS version is any faster in focusing.

 

Unless you always shoot with a tripod, or at 1/500 second or faster, I would say the IS version is well worth the extra money and weight. I have found that I can get excellent results down to about 1/30 sec while shooting at 200mm.