The 70-200mm 2.8L

A

abdabs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
371
Name
Jill
Edit My Images
Yes
Do you think the IS on this lens is worth the extra £800.
 
For me, the extra is money well spent. The IS is awesome in lower light.
Don't forget that the IS lens is also weather sealed, which is something the non IS lacks, which was also a requirement for me.
 
I've got the f4 with IS. The IS can give about 3 stops extra and I often make full use of it (i.e. shooting at f4 with shutter speeds I wouldn't expect to be able to hand hold at). The 2.8 is only 1 stop better than the f4 so I'd say it's definitely something I'd want. Whether it's 'worth' it is for you to decide.
 
abdabs said:
Do you think the IS on this lens is worth the extra £800.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting your quotes from but it's not an extra £800 for IS.

Methinks you have a price for the Mk1 f2.8 non IS and a price for the MkII f2.8 IS
 
Warehouse Express list the 70-200 2.8 IS II at £1800 and the 70-200 2.8 at £1k.
 
Byker28i said:
Warehouse Express list the 70-200 2.8 IS II at £1800 and the 70-200 2.8 at £1k.
Click to expand...

Yep and the f2.8 non IS is the Mk1, totally different lens
 
If you can afford it, get the MkII. If you can't, get the non IS. Simples.
 
admirable said:
Yep and the f2.8 non IS is the Mk1, totally different lens
Click to expand...

but there isn't a mark 2 non IS is there? I didn't think so, in which case how would anyone compare the mark 2 IS with a non IS unless it was the mark 1?
 
joescrivens said:
but there isn't a mark 2 non IS is there? I didn't think so, in which case how would anyone compare the mark 2 IS with a non IS unless it was the mark 1?
Click to expand...

There is a MkI 2.8 non-IS, was a MkI 2.8 IS (now discontinued) and now a MkII IS. They are all completely different optically, and the new MkII 2.8 IS is a sensationally good lens. It even takes a 2x extender well. There are mechanical differences between the various options too, like a weather proofing and a circular aperture.

I'm a big fan of IS, but not so keen on the benefits of one extra stop over the f/4 IS version. If you need f/2.8 then you need it, but otherwise the f/4 version is half the weight and price, and pretty close in performance. This lens also takes an extender well, and a 1.4x retains AF. Another of Canon's gems :thumbs:
 
Recently bought a mint/boxed Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 'L' USM (NON IS) for £680, fabulous lens indeed. I don't shoot sports photography that often so the non-IS suited me fine.

Focusing is silent and fast, over the moon with it.
 
Ok that will be the difference of price then. I have the 70-200mm f4 is usm but looking for a faster lens but just trying to justify the difference in cost whether it's worth it
 
Remember either of the 2.8 versions are bigger and heavier to lug around. At F/4 I doubt if either would give you better results optically than that of the IS F/4 version

-- But if you intend doing a lot of indoor shooting necessitating an aperture of 2.8 well you will have to spend more to do so.

For second -hand although I have seen non IS 2.8 70-200mm lenses going on ebay well below the £800 mark you just need to look hard at the images provided by the seller and ask sraightforward questions of them prior to making a bid.

Used 2.8 IS versions appear to attract final bid prices of between £1000 and £1200 +
Regards
Bob
 
>>>>Used 2.8 IS versions appear to attract final bid prices of between £1000 and £1200 +<<<

I missed off saying that the above refers to the used MK 1 IS 70-200mm f/2.8 the Mk 2 is at least £400 more

Regards
Bob
 
I have the f/4 IS version and I've tried the 2.8 mark 1 with IS. I'd never own that over the f/4, the weight and size difference is just insane.

I think the mark 2 has pushed the gap a bit more in quality though from what I hear. I'd love to see someone take the same shot with the IS mark 2 at 200mm at 2.8 and the f/4 at 200mm at f/4 just to compare the difference
 
I went from the f4 is to the f2.8 is (mk1). Can't say the extra weight has ever bothered me at all. Saying that, if i had used the extra weight as a reason not to buy i would never have been happy with myself.
 
>>>I'd love to see someone take the same shot with the IS mark 2 at 200mm at 2.8 and the f/4 at 200mm at f/4 just to compare the difference<<<

If Im looking for spec and performance of lenses and camera combos I always check out the Digital Picture site link shown below. Option to select the lenses and camera to compare against. The following should be the F/4 against the F2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Regards
Bob
 
joescrivens said:
I have the f/4 IS version and I've tried the 2.8 mark 1 with IS. I'd never own that over the f/4, the weight and size difference is just insane.

I think the mark 2 has pushed the gap a bit more in quality though from what I hear. I'd love to see someone take the same shot with the IS mark 2 at 200mm at 2.8 and the f/4 at 200mm at f/4 just to compare the difference
Click to expand...

Edit: Bob beat me to it :)

Here you are Joe - toggle the arrow in the middle. It's so close as makes no odds - f/2.8 Mk2 is fractionally better in the corners http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

But if you do the same thing with the 2.8 non-IS, the f/4 IS version wins easily. Abdabs, since you have the f/4 IS lens, if you get anything less than the Mk2 2.8 you will notice a drop in quality at lowest f/number.

For me, one of the biggest advantage of the Mk2 is the ability to take a 2x extender and still deliver a 400mm f/5.6 that's almost as good as the 100-400L. If you look at it that way, as a kind of 70-400mm f/2.8-5.6 'zoom' it's an absolute bargain.

Any and all those comparisons available on the-digital-picture link above - just load them up on the drop down menus and compare.
 
Last edited:
The major problem with the TDP tests is that they have very little to do with real world use.

You can't show depth of field on a flat target for example, nor is a BW one very good at displaying CA or colour rendition.
 
DemiLion said:
The major problem with the TDP tests is that they have very little to do with real world use.

You can't show depth of field on a flat target for example, nor is a BW one very good at displaying CA or colour rendition.
Click to expand...

It's a very good site for comparing sharpness (except with wide angles perhaps) which is all most folks mean when they want to know how good a lens is.

Other important aspects of lens performance are also covered if you check the full review page - flare, distortion, vignetting, bokeh etc.

You can't 'test' depth of field. It's not an aspect of relative lens performance.
 
DemiLion said:
The major problem with the TDP tests is that they have very little to do with real world use.

You can't show depth of field on a flat target for example, nor is a BW one very good at displaying CA or colour rendition.
Click to expand...

thats exactly what i want too, a real world example, a portrait
 
jonneymendoza said:
chances of a person owning both f4 and f2.8 is slim
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm may well keep the f/4 when I upgrade in a month or so.
 
Or there could just be two people relatively close with both.
I have a 2.8 is mk1, if anyone local to southend has an f4 i'll be up for setting something up.
 
joescrivens said:
but there isn't a mark 2 non IS is there? I didn't think so, in which case how would anyone compare the mark 2 IS with a non IS unless it was the mark 1?
Click to expand...

I think that is what the OP has done without realising. A comparison with both Mk1's would seem fair but there is too much of a difference between the Mk1 and the MkII to try a fair comparison, apples with apples as they say.
 
DemiLion said:
Not really. I'm may well keep the f/4 when I upgrade in a month or so.
Click to expand...

not really what? not many have both. why?

pointless IMO. same focal length, same build, just different features. there is absolutely noth a f2.8 cant do that the f4 can:shake: But not vice versa.
 
admirable said:
Yep and the f2.8 non IS is the Mk1, totally different lens
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't actually buy a Mk without IS..... Although technically, the price difference is giving you a lot more than just IS.

Steve
 
I've just never seen weight as a big enough factor.

If you want the best and can afford it, why compromise over something like that?

Might as well go pick up a small compact because that's lighter still.
 
jonneymendoza said:
not really what? not many have both. why?

pointless IMO. same focal length, same build, just different features. there is absolutely noth a f2.8 cant do that the f4 can:shake: But not vice versa.
Click to expand...

weight, size and also the fact that many people have spares in case one goes wrong and a spare might not be affordable to have two of the 2.8's
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I've just never seen weight as a big enough factor.

If you want the best and can afford it, why compromise over something like that?

Might as well go pick up a small compact because that's lighter still.
Click to expand...

well theres a much bigger gap in class between what you can get with a compact and a 70-200 f/4 than what you can get between a 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8

weight is a big factor for me, i find it very undesirable to shoot with that 2.8, it's so much heavier. If the image quality is way better then I would justify it, and thats what i'm trying to ascertain, how much better is the end product - does it jusifty the weight difference
 
yea so if weight is the factor. why do you have a f2,8 to begin with?

i stand by what i said, it doesnt make sense at all to own both f2.8 and f4.
 
I don't quite get why the 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS and IS Mk1 are slated on every photography forum I use. They're not as sharp as the Mk2 well bully for the people with the Mk2. Of course revisions of a lens are going to be better than the original. Is that to say that the non-IS or IS Mk1 should be avoided? I really don't see why, at the time both were lusted after by many and they were and still are superb lenses. If you need an f/2.8 70-200 you can't go wrong with any of them, if you need weather sealing get one of the IS versions. If you don't need weather sealing or IS get the non-IS you will not be disappointed.
 
Jelster said:
Yes, but you can't actually buy a Mk without IS..... Although technically, the price difference is giving you a lot more than just IS.

Steve
Click to expand...

I presume you are talking about a MkII?
 
i had the pleasure of using a 70-200 2.8 IS II this week.... truly awesome lens. The reults are fantastic and in use it s a dream, focus locks on so quickly and so firmly.

My hands were knackered after 16 hrs shoot though!
 
jonneymendoza said:
yea so if weight is the factor. why do you have a f2,8 to begin with?
Click to expand...

I don't


jonneymendoza said:
i stand by what i said, it doesnt make sense at all to own both f2.8 and f4.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion and not fact. For some people it makes sense. It's the same reason people often don't have a backup body the same as their normal camera, not everyone can afford 2 of the same.

I also read an example where someone has the 2.8 for normal use but when they go hiking or camping they take the f/4 as it is smaller and light, what doesn't make sense about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top