70-200 non IS L F2.8 is an old lens indeed

P

P-Chan

Messages
429
Name
Ramon
Edit My Images
Yes
If one had to be on the look out to buy a 70-200 f2.8 L but the IS is just about annoyingly out of reach, is it safe to buy the NON IS version new?

Reason is that this lens was issued in 1995. Is this lens still in production considering that there are 2 newer versions of this lens?
 
I don't think they have done a mkII of the non IS so it would still be in production.

With the release of the mkII IS the price of the lens went up compared to the mkI and the mkI disapeared from sale, which has had an effect on the non IS 2.8 lens as people are buying that as it is more affordable the price of that has gone up by about £70-£100 since the release of the IS mkII
 
tnx John. So its more sensible to get the non IS version then get the Mk1 IS.
 
The general consensus is if you need the wide aperture of a 2.8 then buy the 2.8 any version you will be happy with it, if you can get away with f4 then buy one of the f4 versions of the lens as they are considered sharper wide open (but most zoom lenses seem to perform less well wide open) The advantage buying the f4 is you get IS for less than the non IS 2.8.

The 2.8IS mkII does look a lot better than the mkI image quality wise, but the mkI has been considered excellent up until the mkII was released. All the 70-200 canon lenses are great it all depends on your budget. I would love to replace my 2.8 IS mkI but the price of the mkII is way more than I can pay for a lens as a hobby.
 
@perfect .... cute cate :)



Needing the 2.8 for gigs and stuff in rather low lights is why the f4 is completely ruled out.

IS is £400 more on the 2.8. Granted it would be a treasure in certain situations
 
But not for gigs and stuff, a bag of rice is what I use if IS is rarely needed, the 2.8 non would good for this but I find the 50mm f/1.8 invaluable, for gigs and stuff, primes rock.
 
right now I use 50 for gigs and stuff but if I dont manage to get the pass to be on stage then 50 is a tad too short.
 
2nd hand your looking at about £1000 for a mkI 2.8 IS which is about the same price as a new non IS 2.8. If you can get one on here then you can pretty much be certain it has been looked after they should crop up occasionally as people upgrade to the mkII.
 
P-Chan said:
Ah that IF Perfect... what if light is crepe?


But stunning pics dude :)
Click to expand...

Thanks,

Bad lighting = 24-70mm f/2.8 or lots of pushing in with the 50mm f/1.8 :D

I have been looking at the 135mm f1.8 though :naughty:
 
Last edited:
whats the 24-70 can do that the 70 200 cant at 2.8?

Granted with 50 1.8 in bad light is when the cerative photography start coming out (if u see past the softness of extreme low shutters :thumbs: )

Later Ill post some pics
 
Sorry to jump in, i am also looking at the same type of lens.
One thing i would like to know is, how much use is the IS for some one with slightly shaky hands on a 100+ zoom of the 70-200. or is the IS not much use when zoomed in?
 
The 2.8 non-IS is quite heavy, so hand shaking is naturally dampened to some extent anyway I find. It's a superb lens IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top