Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 - IS or non-IS?

Either my 2.8 (non IS) is filled with helium, or I'm superman. I just think far too much is made of the weight of it, yes it's a fair lump but I fail to see that a healthy, grown adult can struggle with it unless you quite literally held it to your face all day long like some sort of sniper. I get what Phil is saying about a monopod in low light etc, I see that's practical, but if you have the chance to try one then do so. I think any problems are being rather exaggerated. And I very rarely use the collar as in general shooting, I find the collar to be the least ergonomic, and most obstructive thing possible.
 
I have the Mk1 non IS 70-200L f2.8 I use this for football handheld and have no issues getting decent sharp images. I am not sure about the above statement of only the MkII being sharp wide open.
This was the pro lens of choice before the MkII and is plenty sharp.
I must admit that I sometimes fail to understand how sharp, sharp is as it seems to change every time Canon or others release a new lens.
Would a MkIII lens make the MkII unsharp???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top