70-200 2.8L non-IS

Started May 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Re: A slight optical difference
In reply to mmullen, May 30, 2012

mmullen wrote:

graphikal wrote:

xxxpongxxx wrote:

re image quality, how much better is the 2.8 IS v2 compared to this one?

Slightly. Optics are not a reason to upgrade from the f/2.8L non-IS, as verified by the-digital-picture.com . Color and contrast are fine on both (as a matter of fact I'm unaware of any L lens where these are poor). I can't vouch for AF differences, however.

No one said the color and contrast were poor, just that their is a considerable difference between the two (especially when shooting into the light).

Addressable in post, always.

The test charts at the-digital-picture.com are not backlit but the differences show up there as considerable:

I disagree. The main difference appears when using a teleconverter. If that's the intended use, then the hefty price difference may make a good deal of sense, but then again other lense choices may make more sense too. I'm certainly not detracting from the IS II at all-- it's certainly improved-- but if I had a non-IS I personally wouldn't spend to upgrade it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow