70-200 is ii vs non is

[azezal]

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

 

[iso79]

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.

 

[Marsu42]

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

 

[sagittariansrock]

Never had the non-IS, but the II has far better flare control than the I.

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.

???

 

[iaind]

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.

 

[R1-7D]

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.

 

[azezal]

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