- Messages
- 653
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sup all,
I've hankered for an 70-200 f/2.8 for a while now but I've been spoilt by the image quality from the f/4 IS I have - as a result the f/2.8 IS mk1 (mkII is just unaffordable) is not for me, just doesn't touch the f/4 IS, I've used several now and always been underwhelmed. However I heard the non-IS f/2.8 was sharper and focused quicker than its IS'd sibling, how sharp is the question though? IS is a bit of a waste on me too so the f/4 I have is a bit off from my needs, I've got the Sigma 120-300 and handhold it all the time and not once have I cried myself to sleep wishing it had IS.
It appears to be a rare beasty in the classifieds and not much discussion on it either - so I was wondering if there were any owners that have the f/2.8 non-IS whether they'd pop up some, straight off the camera, unmolested, shots at wide open?
Or if any one has had a direct use of both and would like to comment on what they thought between the two I'd again appreciate it.
ta.
ads
I've hankered for an 70-200 f/2.8 for a while now but I've been spoilt by the image quality from the f/4 IS I have - as a result the f/2.8 IS mk1 (mkII is just unaffordable) is not for me, just doesn't touch the f/4 IS, I've used several now and always been underwhelmed. However I heard the non-IS f/2.8 was sharper and focused quicker than its IS'd sibling, how sharp is the question though? IS is a bit of a waste on me too so the f/4 I have is a bit off from my needs, I've got the Sigma 120-300 and handhold it all the time and not once have I cried myself to sleep wishing it had IS.
It appears to be a rare beasty in the classifieds and not much discussion on it either - so I was wondering if there were any owners that have the f/2.8 non-IS whether they'd pop up some, straight off the camera, unmolested, shots at wide open?
Or if any one has had a direct use of both and would like to comment on what they thought between the two I'd again appreciate it.
ta.
ads
Last edited: