70-200 2.8L non-IS

Started May 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
mmullen Veteran Member • Posts: 4,285
Re: 70-200 2.8L non-IS

gdanmitchell wrote:

With that in mind, it may make no sense at all to worry about a tiny, insignificant increment of some form of "better-ness" when all of the options are great. It makes more sense to think about the things that actually are different, such as cost, maximum aperture, IS or not, weight, and so on.

The new f/2.8 II version is purportedly better than that older version of that lens. However, you will almost certainly never actually see any visible manifestations of this better-ness unless you shoot in some very particular ways and perhaps make quite large prints and then inspect them with a magnifying lens.

That is simply not true. The differences are readily apparent without a magnifying lens, even in moderate sized prints. Most noticeable is in contrast and color.

Also, for moving subjects the newer lens tracks MUCH more accurately and loses focus less often. That alone will result in a much higher percentage of useable shots.

But I agree, under static conditions, on a tripod and without back lighting, the differences are much smaller. Particularly on a FF camera. But it is not uncommon for the 70-200 to be the longest lens in a photographers bag for any given situation and, thus, the need to crop (or use a TC) when shooting at the long end is not uncommon. It doesn't take much of a crop to show the differences.

And the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is very usable with both a 1.4X and 2X TC. That alone is a major distinguishing difference.

-- hide signature --

Mike Mullen

 mmullen's gear list:mmullen's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow