March 10, 2014, 07:18:29 PM
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: 70-200 is ii vs non is  (Read 1390 times)

azezal

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
70-200 is ii vs non is
« on: February 08, 2013, 05:14:28 AM »
I was just hoping to get some info regarding how they stack up against each other,u don't care about weight or lack of is
I'm interested in af contrast and sharpness. And oh yes flare control.

Just want to know if its worth the premium is I'm not a big fan of is

Thanks in advance
Logged
Anonymity is a blessing,Ignorance is bliss

canon rumors FORUM

70-200 is ii vs non is
« on: February 08, 2013, 05:14:28 AM »

iso79

  • Rebel T4i
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2013, 12:16:44 PM »
The non-IS is supposedly sharper. Get the IS version if you have the arms of a body builder with the shaky hands of an old person.
Logged
5D Mark III | 5D Mark II | 17-40mm f/4L | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 35mm f/1.4L | 85mm f/1.2L II | 135mm f/2L

Marsu42

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4022
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2013, 12:27:04 PM »
Quote from: azezal on February 08, 2013, 05:14:28 AM
Just want to know if its worth the premium is I'm not a big fan of is


I am not an extremely big fan of IS either, but I have to say that using the IS on the comparable 70-300L is a joy to use and the only situation it is not a plus is sports shooting with very high shutter speeds - so don't dismiss it to fast. Plus as written above the sharpness has increased a lot on the latest iteration:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Logged

sagittariansrock

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 457
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2013, 12:36:39 PM »
Never had the non-IS, but the II has far better flare control than the I.

Quote from: iso79 on February 08, 2013, 12:16:44 PM
The non-IS is supposedly sharper. Get the IS version if you have the arms of a body builder with the shaky hands of an old person.

 ???
Logged
EOS 5DIII | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 2x III | 600-EX-RT | 2x YN-622c |

iaind

  • EOS M
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2013, 01:23:39 PM »
I have non IS and it is sharper than IS mark1. If you want it get it soon as being discontinued.

When I got mine the stellar mark2 IS was not yet announced.

It's all down to personal preference.
Logged
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L / 300 4L / 100-400L

R1-7D

  • Rebel T4i
  • ****
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2013, 01:55:15 PM »
While I can't answer your question exactly about how the two lenses compare, I can vouch for the Non IS version being an exceptional lens. It is easily one of my favorite lenses.
Logged
Cameras: 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, Canon M. Lenses: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II,  Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro, Tokina SD 16-28mm f/2.8 FX, Canon M 18-55mm IS, Canon M 22mm

azezal

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2013, 02:03:21 AM »
Thanks everybody for the replies.I think I'm going to wait till I'm clear on contrast, color rendering and flare control capability of the 2.I just don't want to regret my purchase later,which ever lens I buy,I'm low on funds and in the cost of IS I can easily get a 17-40 so I hope u can understand my dilemma

Thanks in advance
Logged
Anonymity is a blessing,Ignorance is bliss

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200 is ii vs non is
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2013, 02:03:21 AM »
Pages: [1]
« previous next »