70-200mm f2.8 to 70-200mm f2.8 IS II worth it?

[risc32]

I have no doubt you'll be pleased. happy shooting.

[risc32]

I have no doubt you'll be pleased. happy shootin

[RLPhoto]

Yes.

Sharper, Faster AF, and Improved IS. Its a worthwhile upgrade.

[THX723]

Has anybody had much experience with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II with the 2x Extender III? I think the combination is sharp enough for me but I'd like to know what people think of the AF speed - as it will be reduced. Can it still track motor sports etc even if it takes a little longer to get the initial lock on? I hear it's faster AF than the Extender II but I've not used either. I may rent before I buy but I'd like to hear your take on the subject.

I shoot motorsports with that very combo: 70-200 f2.8L II + 2x TC III. It is definitely up to the task. There is a perceptible drop in AF speed as well as IQ, but still very acceptable. The combined mass will get to you, if you plan on free-holding (w.o. monopod/tripod). The 100-400 is much better in that respect. However the 70-200/2x is far more versatile w. it's 70-200/140-400 dual role.

[bkorcel]

MkII is definately worth it...but I feel the original non-IS model is just a "touch" sharper.  The IS at 200mm or more with the extenders makes up for it though.

Really boils down to if you need the IS at all.  Some people use tripods, have steady hands, cant afford the IS.  I would not get one with the Mark I  IS.  They are soft all over the place and was a mistake to release as an L lens.  Original and MKII versions were much better.

If you already own the non-IS version, you will get a pretty good trade in for it depending on condition...which was what I did.

[drjlo]

The IS at 200mm or more with the extenders makes up for it though.

Shooting at 400mm (with 2X TC III) hand-held is greatly helped by the excellent IS on the 70-200 f/2.8 II.  Carrying a tripod is often talked about but seldom done IME.


DZ3C4750 by drjlo1, on Flickr