70-200 2.8L non-IS

Started May 27, 2012 | Discussions
mmullen
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,261Gear list
Like?
Re: A slight optical difference
In reply to graphikal, May 30, 2012

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).

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

But photos taken under laboratory conditions do not show the very significant differences in the real world (www.the-digital-picture.com images are taken using very precise manual focusing). One of the biggest differences between the two lenses is focus precision (the newer lenses have more AF positions than older lenses to accomodate sensors with higher pixel density) and that has a much greater effect on the resulting images than lab photos will show.

Of course if all your photos are taken with manual focus that won't matter.

-- hide signature --

Mike Mullen

 mmullen's gear list:mmullen's gear list
Canon PowerShot S80 Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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
mmullen
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,261Gear list
Like?
Re: A slight optical difference
In reply to graphikal, May 31, 2012

graphikal wrote:

mmullen wrote:

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.

That reminds me of people who say the lens doesn't have to be sharp - it can be sharpened in PP. While it's true that an image that has veiling flare can be improved in PP, it will never look as good as an image that didn't have the issue to begin with. Veiling flare reduces dynamic range and you can't get it back. It also affects different parts of the image differently and requires extensive masking for the best possible fix. Which still isn't as good as getting the shot right to begin with.

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.

Fair enough, I don't try to tell people how much $$ something is worth to them - that's a very personal decision. Personally, I wouldn't want a lens in this range without excellent image stabilization. But if you are always on a tripod or shooting fast action it doesn't make much difference.

-- hide signature --

Mike Mullen

 mmullen's gear list:mmullen's gear list
Canon PowerShot S80 Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Re: A slight optical difference
In reply to mmullen, May 31, 2012

mmullen wrote:

graphikal wrote:

mmullen wrote:

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.

That reminds me of people who say the lens doesn't have to be sharp - it can be sharpened in PP. While it's true that an image that has veiling flare can be improved in PP, it will never look as good as an image that didn't have the issue to begin with. Veiling flare reduces dynamic range and you can't get it back. It also affects different parts of the image differently and requires extensive masking for the best possible fix. Which still isn't as good as getting the shot right to begin with.

I just think you're blowing any potential issues here waaaaaay out of proportion, like some other posters here. Does that perfect storm of difficult shooting conditions, where somewhat of an improvement in flare etc. would make a substantial difference for that image, justify such a price hike? You (who have already made your purchasing decision and obviously intend to strongly stand behind it) feel one way; others feel another.

Fair enough, I don't try to tell people how much $$ something is worth to them - that's a very personal decision. Personally, I wouldn't want a lens in this range without excellent image stabilization. But if you are always on a tripod or shooting fast action it doesn't make much difference.

To me, the possible image quality differences at 200mm, with or without a TC, would be most important, not stabilization-- but that's because I am trying to pick a lens to be my do-it-all lens for field sports for a while. After looking at the samples again, I would never even try to put a 2X TC on the old f/2.8L or IS I. But then I might be better served by a 100-400 or 100-300 anyway, when it comes down to it-- it'd suit my budget better and be far better than an older zoom with a TC.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
69chevy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,532
Like?
Re: 70-200 2.8L non-IS
In reply to xxxpongxxx, May 31, 2012

I own the 70-200 2.8 Non IS. I wanted to see if the hype measured up. I rented a new IS mkII for comparison. I literally found no differences at any end of the zoom range.

However, I do not own an IS lens, and always am very consious of my technique. I can imagine if you shoot in low light often, the IS could save you some ISO room.

Regardless, the Non IS version is a STEAL at around $900 used. You cannot buy a better lens for the money! I shoot weddings, portraits and sports with it. I wouldn't upgrade to the IS mkII version even if I had money to burn.

Just find your slowest hand held SS at 200mm and don't go below it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DA photo
Regular MemberPosts: 137Gear list
Like?
Re: 70-200 2.8L non-IS
In reply to 69chevy, May 31, 2012

69 Chevy. Plus one. My point exactly. To modify a phrase, we are talking about distinctions without very much difference. I would not sell mine for 900 for what would I replace it with? I have a 100-400 that matches up very well with my new 7D but when I go into dark places my 1200 dollar new in 1997 70-200 goes with me. If you amortize it over fifteen years it cost less that a hundred dollars a year. The best investment I ever made in a piece of photo gear and it is for me still emminently usable.
--
DAphoto

 DA photo's gear list:DA photo's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 100D Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xxxpongxxx
Regular MemberPosts: 123
Like?
Re: 70-200 2.8L non-IS
In reply to DA photo, May 31, 2012

thanks for the info guys!

i asked the question not because i wanted to upgrade but because my current unit's AF motor is sputtering already. sent it to canon and they told me the cost of repairing it.

The price is a bit high for me to consider getting a new unit, primarily because someone is offering me a good amount for this unit even though he knows that the motor is failing at times, (i have no idea if he knows how to fix it, told him the cost, or maybe he uses MF most of the time... i don't know)

don't get me wrong, i am very satisfied with this unit, it has been my most used lens for the past 3 years. i just asked to know if it is worth it to move to the IS II or stick with this model.

The posts have been very informative and very helpful

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MirekE
Contributing MemberPosts: 820
Like?
Re: 70-200 2.8L non-IS
In reply to xxxpongxxx, Jun 2, 2012

xxxpongxxx wrote:

don't get me wrong, i am very satisfied with this unit, it has been my most used lens for the past 3 years. i just asked to know if it is worth it to move to the IS II or stick with this model.

If you ever lost any important images due to camera shake at low light, it could very well be worth it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MirekE
Contributing MemberPosts: 820
Like?
Re: 70-200 2.8L non-IS
In reply to 69chevy, Jun 2, 2012

69chevy wrote:

I own the 70-200 2.8 Non IS. I wanted to see if the hype measured up. I rented a new IS mkII for comparison. I literally found no differences at any end of the zoom range.

No differences in flare resistance, speed and accuracy of AF, CA correction and performance wide open?

Besides optical performance, no differences in weather resistance and handhold-ability?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads