Anyone prefer 70-200 2.8 non-IS?

[Tom Holly]

I have 70-200 II IS, and also have the 70-200 non-IS on long term loan. Despite 70-200 II being acclaimed as the best (it's hard to dispute), I find I reach for the non IS more often. If I needed the IS, e.g. dim indoor static subjects, I'd go for the II, but otherwise I just seem to prefer the feel and weight of the original.

Anyone else feel similar?

 

[BlueRay2]

I have 70-200 II IS, and also have the 70-200 non-IS on long term loan. Despite 70-200 II being acclaimed as the best (it's hard to dispute), I find I reach for the non IS more often. If I needed the IS, e.g. dim indoor static subjects, I'd go for the II, but otherwise I just seem to prefer the feel and weight of the original.

Anyone else feel similar?

i have had my 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a long time and still like it a lot! it is sharp, excellent color saturation and micro contrast. i think i'll keep mine for a long time to come ;-) here is a gallery that i took with this lens:

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p151264671

 

[ZedDoctor]

I have 70-200 II IS, and also have the 70-200 non-IS on long term loan. Despite 70-200 II being acclaimed as the best (it's hard to dispute), I find I reach for the non IS more often. If I needed the IS, e.g. dim indoor static subjects, I'd go for the II, but otherwise I just seem to prefer the feel and weight of the original.

Anyone else feel similar?

i have had my 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a long time and still like it a lot! it is sharp, excellent color saturation and micro contrast. i think i'll keep mine for a long time to come ;-) here is a gallery that i took with this lens:

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p151264671

Very nice photos!

I've been looking into this lens a lot, so i think Ive narrowed down my choices again LOL

 

[Kevin Coppalotti]

Have not touched the non IS since i purchased the new one model II. sharper and better with the IS.

 

[Tom Holly]

Yeah; I know most people swear by the II.

thats why I was a little surprised to keep reaching for the non is version!

Curious to know if anyone else felt the same...

 

[ffabrici]

I preferred the non IS version over the first IS version, but the IS II is by far the best of the 3 when it comes to sharpness and contrast, especially at 200mm where the two earlier versions are weaker at f 2.8.

 

[BlueRay2]

I preferred the non IS version over the first IS version, but the IS II is by far the best of the 3 when it comes to sharpness and contrast, especially at 200mm where the two earlier versions are weaker at f 2.8.

the only problem with f2.8 II is its price, it is a bit out of reach for many people! and let's don't forget about the amazing f4.0 IS! because of that fluorite element, i think it can compete against any lens in that class, including the f2.8 II ;-) and here is a sample:

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p1025988134/h2c9e7668#h2c9e7668

to be honest, i don't know what a f2.8II can do better than this, and if someone has a sample, i would like to see it ;-)

 

[tonym38]

I bought the non-IS version many years ago during the days of film (remember that stuff??), before the first IS version came out. I was completely happy with the quality of the photos that it produced. When the first IS version came out, the general opinion seemed to be that the image quality was not that much better than the non-IS lens. I therefore did not buy that lens. When the IS Mk II came out, reviews indicated that the quality was better, so I upgraded. I have not regretted my purchase as, in my opinion, the sharpness is superior to what I had before. The only thing that I do not like about the Mk II is that, while the specs show that it is a bit heavier than the non-IS, to me it feels a lot heavier in my hands. (Maybe I am just getting old.) YMMV.

 

[maiaibing]

I have 70-200 II IS, and also have the 70-200 non-IS on long term loan. Despite 70-200 II being acclaimed as the best (it's hard to dispute), I find I reach for the non IS more often. If I needed the IS, e.g. dim indoor static subjects, I'd go for the II, but otherwise I just seem to prefer the feel and weight of the original.

Anyone else feel similar?

I always go for the best lens.

However, the non-IS is a great value offer in the Canon line-up and more people should probably consider the substantial saving compared to the IS-model. The non-IS is in fact optically better than the old EF 70-200mm IS L

 

[fishy wishy]

I held off on the original IS because I really didn't think it came out with any better IQ than some of the third-party lenses like Sigma. The IS II is a masterpiece. I kind of smirk when Nikon owners say their VR II is the best 70-200. I see some faults in the IQ and a lot of focus breathing.

 

[Bassy]

a nuthatch fly,s away but the robin stayed canon 6d with 70-200 f 2.8 mark 2

these are tiffs,,just showing for samples i do know the peanut,s do not look good in the shot,s,i was sat in my car taking these on dartmoor in devon uk

 

[Tom Holly]

I still shoot a lot of film. These lenses go on my film and digital bodies.

Your comment about the weight is what I noticed, and what leads me to prefer the old one! It's still a very sharp lens, even though the II is better.

 

[Kameratrollet]

Do not miss my 70-200/2,8L at all. Soft at 200 mm and f/2,8 compared to the new IS II.

 

[hotdog321]

No. I've owned and heavily used all the versions of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L lenses, even the original 80-200 f/2.8 "Magic Stovepipe." They are ALL superb pro-level lenses, but each iteration is slightly better than the previous. Furthermore, the IS is extremely valuable in low light handheld situations.

True, I wouldn't mind the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II being smaller and lighter, but the optical quality is just too good to ignore if you have the option.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[Bassy]

well then guy,s all i can say about the the mark 2 is that i love it to bits

a few weeks ago i took the 6d and this lens to a point to point horse race

i have cropped out the sky it was a grey and dismal day most of the time

these are tiffs

 

[BlueRay2]

well then guy,s all i can say about the the mark 2 is that i love it to bits

a few weeks ago i took the 6d and this lens to a point to point horse race

i have cropped out the sky it was a grey and dismal day most of the time

these are tiffs

i don't think if this thread is to dismiss or discredit the f2.8II, i am sure it is a superb lens, no question about it! but in the same time, there are other alternative, such as f4.0 IS...or as OP has stated, the f2.8 non-IS! it would be hard to tell the difference between them in most cases! so, it comes down to economics and affordability of each iteration, IMO. for me, and for those who travel and don't want to drag extra weight without compromising quality, the f4.0 IS is the best choice that meets all of the wishes and demands ;-)

 

[hotdog321]

well then guy,s all i can say about the the mark 2 is that i love it to bits

a few weeks ago i took the 6d and this lens to a point to point horse race

i have cropped out the sky it was a grey and dismal day most of the time

these are tiffs

i don't think if this thread is to dismiss or discredit the f2.8II, i am sure it is a superb lens, no question about it! but in the same time, there are other alternative, such as f4.0 IS...or as OP has stated, the f2.8 non-IS! it would be hard to tell the difference between them in most cases! so, it comes down to economics and affordability of each iteration, IMO. for me, and for those who travel and don't want to drag extra weight without compromising quality, the f4.0 IS is the best choice that meets all of the wishes and demands ;-)

Actually, I agree. I'm a pro and you'd have to pry the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II out of my cold, dead hands. But the lighter and cheaper f/4 or earlier f/2.8 versions are nice for those who don't want to hassle with the weight. Personally, the IS function and the f/2.8 aperture are essential, but not everyone does this stuff for a living!









--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[BlueRay2]

well then guy,s all i can say about the the mark 2 is that i love it to bits

a few weeks ago i took the 6d and this lens to a point to point horse race

i have cropped out the sky it was a grey and dismal day most of the time

these are tiffs

i don't think if this thread is to dismiss or discredit the f2.8II, i am sure it is a superb lens, no question about it! but in the same time, there are other alternative, such as f4.0 IS...or as OP has stated, the f2.8 non-IS! it would be hard to tell the difference between them in most cases! so, it comes down to economics and affordability of each iteration, IMO. for me, and for those who travel and don't want to drag extra weight without compromising quality, the f4.0 IS is the best choice that meets all of the wishes and demands ;-)

Actually, I agree. I'm a pro and you'd have to pry the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II out of my cold, dead hands. But the lighter and cheaper f/4 or earlier f/2.8 versions are nice for those who don't want to hassle with the weight. Personally, the IS function and the f/2.8 aperture are essential, but not everyone does this stuff for a living!









--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

those are nice shots, Craig! here are a couple of shot with f2.8 non-IS, wide open:

Loading…

azbaha.zenfolio.com

Loading…

azbaha.zenfolio.com

P.S. no flash was used...just the ambient light!

 

[hotdog321]

well then guy,s all i can say about the the mark 2 is that i love it to bits

a few weeks ago i took the 6d and this lens to a point to point horse race

i have cropped out the sky it was a grey and dismal day most of the time

these are tiffs

i don't think if this thread is to dismiss or discredit the f2.8II, i am sure it is a superb lens, no question about it! but in the same time, there are other alternative, such as f4.0 IS...or as OP has stated, the f2.8 non-IS! it would be hard to tell the difference between them in most cases! so, it comes down to economics and affordability of each iteration, IMO. for me, and for those who travel and don't want to drag extra weight without compromising quality, the f4.0 IS is the best choice that meets all of the wishes and demands ;-)

Actually, I agree. I'm a pro and you'd have to pry the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II out of my cold, dead hands. But the lighter and cheaper f/4 or earlier f/2.8 versions are nice for those who don't want to hassle with the weight. Personally, the IS function and the f/2.8 aperture are essential, but not everyone does this stuff for a living!

 

[Tom Holly]

Yes if I took photos for a living it would be 70-200 II all the way.

For me it's just for a bit of fun, and the 70-200 is sharp enough.