Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon EF 70-200mm...IS or not IS

Eric Santiago

Eric Santiago

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Canada
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

or

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Is the IS that much helpful for non sport/nature shooting?

Im trying to compliment the following lens set:

Tokina 11-16
Rokinon cine 35mm
Rokinon Cine 85mm

If anyone else wants to throw a lens in there, please reply.

Keep in mind, looking at my set, Im not at the CP.2 price range yet :(
 
The 70-200 II IS is an incredibly sharp zoom, possibly one of the sharpest zooms on the market especially in that price range. Having the built in IS is huge, especially when you get out at those longer focal lengths 100+, things can start to get pretty shaky, fast if you're doing handheld work. A great combo is the Manfrotto gimballed monopod with an Epic/Scarlet stripped down just with a monitor and that lens.
 
I you were to measure the non IS 70-200 to the first IS 70-200 2.8 then the non IS is the sharper one, but the new II series is the best of them all, of course if they do make the non IS version II then that would be the sharps for simple reasons of physics and mechanical elements built within the lens it self to allow forIS to work which renders the same exact model of lens less sharp vs. it's non IS brother.
 
Great stuff folks, very helpful.

Shervin that lens is hard to find locally here in Mid-Western Canada.

Anything near you locally?
 
I was thinking of swapping out my series 1 70 - 200 non IS for a IS version 1 or 2 because I heard they where better. From some of the above post this appears not to be correct. Correct?

Also isn't it a lucky dip with series 1's some are sharp others soft?
 
Mike Garrick said:
I was thinking of swapping out my series 1 70 - 200 non IS for a IS version 1 or 2 because I heard they where better. From some of the above post this appears not to be correct. Correct?

Also isn't it a lucky dip with series 1's some are sharp others soft?
Click to expand...


Read above.

Series 1, non IS is better, then IS version, and in fact the f/4 is better then both 2.8 version One, but not better then V. II IS, but again if a V. II non IS was to be made it will be better then it's IS version, simple fact of amount of elements and construction.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Read above.

Series 1, non IS is better, then IS version, and in fact the f/4 is better then both 2.8 version One, but not better then V. II IS, but again if a V. II non IS was to be made it will be better then it's IS version, simple fact of amount of elements and construction.
Click to expand...

is the IS really not worth the cost diff?
 
Eric Santiago said:
is the IS really not worth the cost diff?
Click to expand...

The IS is worth it if the type of shooting you do a lot benefits from it! Most will get some benefit, but only you can decide if it's worth it to you. The price difference is large, but if you can wait and save up the extra, I think it's worth it. At the same time the non-IS versions are also fine lenses, so if you need a lens of the zoom range and fast aperture right now, then get one of those.
 
Eric Santiago said:
is the IS really not worth the cost diff?
Click to expand...


If you can afford the price difference and you get the v.II definitely yes, as it is a far superior lens and also the IS very much improved in all axis.

If you can't afford it, and you don't need a lens as fast as 2.8 then don't even bother by IS or non IS , and get the non IS f4, as it is the sharpest of the v.I 70-200 lenses.

If you do need a 2.8 and also use it with Still cameras then get the IS as it could help you shoot at lower shutter speeds and lower light, but for the Epic I never card for IS.


IS is a double edge sward, were in one side helps you stabilizing your shot, yet on the other if you calculate properly your ISO and shutter speed, you'll never need it, and not having will give you sharper images.

Then again, sharper images also do come thanks to luck of motion blur which IS helps avoid, if you can't use proper ISO and Shutter sped.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
If you do need a 2.8 and also use it with Still cameras then get the IS as it could help you shoot at lower shutter speeds and lower light, but for the Epic I never card for IS.
Click to expand...

Ciao ketch,

Di mi in confidenza, per piacere, che cosa significa queste, con "card?"

Seems the IS on DSLR has been good for a solid F stop,no?

Mille Grazie

Fury
 
Thanks Ketch & Scott for the words.

@ Scott , I'm sort a wondering if I have a "soft" 70 -200 as I've noticed in "focus mode" the image doesn't seem sharp & thats around f 5.6. Hence my queries.

@ Ketch, I agree the less elements the better .....I was wondering if the IS version had some "secret sauce', obviously not. Nice to know non IS is still the way to go. Left field is the f4 version which I always dismissed. But you reckon is sharper than all the others.
 
I think the IS is great. It is good enough for quick takes resting the camera against something, or even hand held. It's not a lens that I shoot from my shoulder much, but if I were to then the IS would be useful. I am not in love with this lens, as I prefer primes, but it is useful for event work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top