Canon 70-200 non IS vs. 70-200 IS

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
I really should know the answer to this, but a friend has text me to say that historically, the non IS variant of the 70-200 is sharper than the IS version. Naturally, this interests me as it could save me £500.00 but, is it that much sharper and also, I think I need to shoot at about 1/60th at 200mm hence the interest in the IS version.

Answers on a postcard if anyone has any ideas. Note that I am not looking for uber sharp either.

Thanks,

Petey Pie:)
 
Is this the 2.8 version you are talking about?

I currently have a 70-200 2.8 IS and it seems to me almost as sharp as my 200mm 2.8, so I don't have any complaints. I haven't however used the non IS version.

Sorry I wasn't much help:lol:
 
I've heard some say the IS is sharper, and others that the non-IS is. I think people tend to decide depending on their prejudice either for or against IS. For sure, the IS lens will be sharper at longer shutter speeds ;)

But the two lenses (both f/4 and f/2.8) are different optically. Canon's MTF graphs shwo them both to be exceptionally good, and though the graphs are limited, it could be argued that either version is better in certain aspects.

Personally, I think it's six of one and half dozen of the other. Both are brilliant lenses.
 
Usually ive found that those who have the NON is 2.8 say its the sharpest, those who have the F4 IS the same and those who have the 2.8IS the same again.

Make of that what you wish lol
 
i think Canon upgraded the glass and elements with the latest IS version
i switched between the two over the course of a working day and found that the IS is a tad sharper and the colours are more defined too
 
Cheers Guys.

I went for the non IS variant to save £500.00 and I can PP the photos. It is immaculate too and looking forward to getting it. Yet another lens in the collection - odd to think I had the Nikon 70-200 VR which was my least used lens, but on my 5D2, the 70-200 is proving to be my go to lens regarding portrait.

I appreciate the replies.

Pete.
 
you'll be very happy with the non IS, pete. Everytime I use mine it leaves me smiling!
 
The money saved would just about buy a Pentax K20D body with inbuilt shake reduction, which could be paired with a Pentax 50-135 or Sigma 50-150. Then you've got shake reduction for short primes and old lenses, too. The Pentax K-7 body will be announced shortly.
 
Yeah, thanks. I am not shooting over sharp photos hence the 1/60th thing and yes I use an old monopod 679b manfrotto which has seen some decent action....
 
Pete

Ok, havent heard from you for a while. You still shooting Canon? I thought you sold up and went back to Nikon?

Mike
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Pete

Ok, havent heard from you for a while. You still shooting Canon? I thought you sold up and went back to Nikon?

Mike
Click to expand...

Sort of. I bought a D700 but found it had the worst WB of any modern camera I have owned from 04 onwards. I also decided to shoot less and figured that the Canon 5D2 is ideal for me and decided to stick with it. I love it, great camera but then, they all are. :thumbs:

A few musings on my blog now, as I do shoot less, but I think I am better than I was a few years back.

Thanks,

Pete.
 
Ah right, no worries :) Just wondered.

Take it easy buddy
 
Radiohead said:
Really? I find it scarily accurate, sometimes too much so and I warm it up a little for skintones.
Click to expand...

Yeah, very odd. Nothing like the D3 in my opinion, but then, very little is.

No big deal and easy to eek it out, but heck, you know me better than anyone :cuckoo::D
 
malla1962 said:
I have used all 4 canon 70-200's and as far as sharpness goes there is not a lot in it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Malla, that is what I figured...not overly concerned as I am shooting romantic, less sharp photos so biting sharpness not required.

Pete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top