70-200 2.8L non-IS

Started May 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
mmullen Veteran Member • Posts: 4,285
Re: A slight optical difference

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 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