70-200 2.8 L IS

[wlahc1]

I am wondering weaither i should by the new is version or just get the regular version. I mean the price is almost 1000 more for the is. I shoot alot of sports and i have a very steady hand, but on the other hand I kow its a total brand new lense also with more elemnst so i am stuck. All adive would be helpful.

[soumya63]

70-200 2.8 L IS is optically desiged differently than the regular 70-200 2.8 and you are rightly concerned. More elements means greater chances of flare and loss of light transferred through the lens.

I am also in the same dilemma what to do. I have search in the net about the reviews and yet to found any negative reviews of this new design. Apparently it is as good as the original one.

So I have decided to go for it cause sometime that low light handheld shooting capability may offer you once a lifetime shot which is otherwise impossible.

[wlahc1]

ok you lost me, you said more elemts means more loss of light? but then you said you were goin to get the is version right? or was it the non is.

[soumya63]

I have ment that I am saving for the the IS version. With my experience with non IS 300L, I have found IS is a kind of god send option when the light is low, you have packed your tripod/monopod and you saw a sudden shooting opportunity.

I believe 70-200 IS may not be very optically inferior than the original one. To me IS is definitely a major value addition for which I can tolarate a bit of flare, little loss of light and may be a little less sharpness at full open aperture :D

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Check out Michael Reichmann's review of this lens:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/70-200is.htm

According to him the choice between IS and non-IS is a no-brainer in favour of the new lens.

Regards,

[JCDoss]

I can't think of a reason to opt for the non-IS version that doesn't have something to do with saving money... Most (but not all) people I know who have upgraded from the non-IS to the IS version have been satisfied. IS is truly amazing, and if you plan to use converters at all, I'd think the IS would be worth it.

;)JCDoss

[richphoto]

I have had 2 of the non is versions and just recieved the is version last week.
there is no flare problem andn the use of rounded aperature blades gives a better specular highlight than the old one.
the glass elements are better because they are using a few new types of coatings and glass.
I actually found that this specific lens* is sharper than the old one.

* every lens will have some variation in its sharpness so always always test the heck out of a new lens to make sure you have a good one. I have seen this in almost all zoom lenses and a few primes.

[davisp]

I recently purchased the Canon 70-200mm IS lens and I love it. I did not own the previous non IS lens so I can't compare the two. I can only tell you that when shooting in dim light it makes the difference delivering sharp pictures that you probably would not otherwise get. I use it to shoot motor sports and I am extremely pleased with the results. pdavis