Canon 70-200 F2.8L vs Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS II

I am in the market to purchase a quality telephoto lens. So far I've been looking at two Canon 70-200 L lenses. one has IS and the other does not. The only question to me is...is it worth the extra for IS or can I get just do just fine without it. I am open to suggestions.

The IS is nice

I think it's worth it if you're doing portraits where flash isn't allowed or lots of panning (motorsports, prop aircraft, cycling etc.) The IS was a lot more significant on the 2.8 IS II than the f4L IS in comparing the ones I've used. If budget is a factor to you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the non-IS, and for fast action you'll need shutter speed well beyond the dictates of camera shake prevention shutter speeds, so you won't need it that much. If you can afford it, I'd probably go IS II unless your kit is lacking elsewhere and the price difference would be better put toward XYZ item to accomplish your desired end result.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that since you are asking, you can afford the IS. I saved for a couple years to be able to afford the IS MKII and am so glad I did. I shoot mostly sports with it, which negates the IS but here and there out for a walk I take it and the IS is so very nice to have. The IS MKII is truly one of the best pieces of kit out there.

If you set it to shoot our doors, the IS won't be so needed.
But as stated before, Its nice to have. Really nice to have.

Personally, I would prefer the F/4 IS than the F/2.8L. If just think "do I really need it?" and its not a budget consideration as in "I'm not sure I want to spend that much", I suggest the IS II.

I started with the 70-200 f4L non IS and loved it, but got to the point where I needed IS and f2.8 for low light shots. I got the f2.8L IS MkI and was very impressed with it, but after seeing the shots other people were getting with the IS MkII I just had to upgrade. It's been worth every penny and is the best lens overall that I have.

Here is my experience. I've had the 2.8 (non-IS) and it worked awesome for motorsport, then I got the MK II and the IQ was awesome but that was turning the IS OFF. So based on experience save your $$$ and get the non-IS version then once you have enough $$$ go get a MK II for the IQ only.

It is your $$$ and surely depends on what you are shooting for but I would guess 95% of your time shooting the non-IS would work just fine and as you can tell Canon still sells the non-IS version so it still hold some value to it.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16405295
the non-IS would work just fine and as you can tell Canon still sells the non-IS version so it still hold some value to it.

I realize they're just rumors, but there has been talk that this 1995-era lens will be discontinued this year. Reports from owners of the 70-200 2.8 non-IS that Canon isn't servicing some of them as some part-stock has already been depleted.

http://www.canonrumors​.com …2-8l-non-is-discontinued/

http://www.canonrumors​.com …discontinued-in-2013-cr2/

These are just rumors. Look at their website Canon are still selling these lenses which means they are not EOL (End of Life).

A typically EOL product is given an additional 5 years after they've been pulled off the product line. This is an industry standard for most product, to which I would believe Canon will follow suit for a huge corporation like Canon. This is of course true unless replacement parts are not being produced anymore to which I'd highly doubt for them to stop producing replacement parts. And being that the non-IS's physical build and format are identical to the IS version, minus the selector switch plate, it is basically an identical lens case that has room for additional components.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16405584
These are just rumors. Look at their website Canon are still selling these lenses which means they are not EOL (End of Life).

Yes, I made that quite clear that they are just rumors. However when you have actual owners of the lens saying that Canon would not service them due to parts no longer being available, that's a red flag to anyone considering purchasing this lens, especially right now brand new. One user even had their non-IS 2.8 lens replaced with a brand new version 2 IS.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16405584
A typically EOL product is given an additional 5 years after they've been pulled off the product line. This is an industry standard for most product, to which I would believe Canon will follow suit for a huge corporation like Canon.

Not with Canon Lenses. The 300 f/2.8 IS disappeared almost overnight after the announcement of the version II, and it's price, and there were shortages of parts well before it was even announced that it was going to be discontinued.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16405584
This is of course true unless replacement parts are not being produced anymore to which I'd highly doubt for them to stop producing replacement parts.

Reports from owners sending in their lens, and Canon saying they won't service them due to lack of parts, that's exactly what's going on.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16405584
And being that the non-IS's physical build and format are identical to the IS version, minus the selector switch plate, it is basically an identical lens case that has room for additional components.

They are not identical. They have entirely different lens elements, different optical formulas, 18/15 lenses/groups vs 23/18 is not identical. The fact that they are similar, share the same focal length and aperture has nothing to do with whether or not Canon is still making parts for it, or whether they are interchangeable or 'identical'.
http://www.f20c.com …%202.8%20L%20IS​%20USM.PDF
http://www.f20c.com …0-200%202.8%20L%20USM.PD​F
Not to mention the 70-200 f/2.8L IS you're talking about is discontinued itself.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is completely different from both of the other two as well.

I'm going to let the OP decide whether to purchase a lens that could no longer be serviceable or possible to even obtain spare parts for in the very near future.

I had the 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS and sold it to buy the version II. Had I known that it was going to be discontinued though that would have sped up my desire to upgrade and get away from the lens that may no longer be serviceable. For many people the fact the lens might not be repaired is ok, because they've owned the lens for several years and gotten a lot of use out of it, but for someone considering to buy it right now, especially if they're buying brand new, it would be good to inform them of the potential for servicing and replacement parts problems.

well best is to call canon in Irvine and get confirmation that they will not service it.

Update: I just got off the phone with Canon Factory Service Center and I was right and was wrong also. Based on the Service Center's warranty bulletin on their computer system the 70-200 2.8 L Non-IS is still being serviced and available parts on hand and currently they are not expected to be EOL anytime soon. I was wrong on the years they will support on the lens. Based on the Service Center's records and warranty policy Canon will support the lens for 7 years AFTER they are discontinued. I hope that clears the rumor mill.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16405584
These are just rumors. Look at their website Canon are still selling these lenses which means they are not EOL (End of Life).

A typically EOL product is given an additional 5 years after they've been pulled off the product line. This is an industry standard for most product, to which I would believe Canon will follow suit for a huge corporation like Canon. This is of course true unless replacement parts are not being produced anymore to which I'd highly doubt for them to stop producing replacement parts. And being that the non-IS's physical build and format are identical to the IS version, minus the selector switch plate, it is basically an identical lens case that has room for additional components.

Believe what you will, but Canon has run out of spares for repair of items before, about the same time or only shortly after they were discontinued. The EF 200/1.8L is an example. In particular it's AF was virtually unrepairable if it failed, about the same time the lens was discontinued (around 2004 or 2005, if memory serves... also a couple years before the replacement EF 200/2L IS was introduced).

It is only a rumor and I would expect sooner or later Canon will offer a replacement for the oldest 70-200 in their line-up. The f2.8 non-IS is also considered to have the lowest IQ of any of the 70-200s, though it isn't bad. 70-200/2.8 IS was an improvement and the 70-200/2.8 IS II further improved on that (and works better with teleconverters).

OP, yes it's a premium price, but what you are paying for with the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II is more than just the IS. It's the latest and greatest of the line of excellent 70-200 Canon zooms. On the leading edge of Canon's development of the series, it has five UD elements and a fluorite element, which add to the cost. In comparison, the 70-200/4 (1999) and 70-200/4 IS (2006) also use fluorite, but only have two UD elements each... And the 70-200/2.8 (1995) and 70-200/2.8 IS first version (2001) don't use fluorite, but have four UD each.

I just would have to say that in general for the best possible IQ and future-proofing, the latest and greatest would be the best to buy.... even though it's considerably more expensive.

If you want to save a bit, you might consider a still-quite-capable 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" used, or the 70-200/4 IS (which many rank as the second best IQ of the series). If buying used, I'd recommend being cautious... these are popular lenses that many pros wouldn't be without and use extensively. They are workhorses, durable and reliable... still watch out for used lenses with heavy wear and tear.

Get the 85L2 first, then 35L, very nice lens.

I have the non-IS, and I have a budget that would afford me the IS-II if I wanted it enough. It's not worth it to me, as the non-IS is super freaking sharp in the sports situations I use it most, and leaves me wanting for nothing. For the 2x/year situations where I am shooting low light, I use my hand-me-down monopod instead of a $1000 IS system. I know the IS II optics are prime-quality, and I would never suggest that my non-IS hits that IQ level, but the non-IS performs so well for me that I want nothing else.

ben805 wrote in post #16406086
Get the 85L2 first, then 35L, very nice lens.

Well, that's helpful, given that we're talking about zooms here.

waterrockets wrote in post #16406198
I have the non-IS, and I have a budget that would afford me the IS-II if I wanted it enough. It's not worth it to me, as the non-IS is super freaking sharp in the sports situations I use it most, and leaves me wanting for nothing. For the 2x/year situations where I am shooting low light, I use my hand-me-down monopod instead of a $1000 IS system. I know the IS II optics are prime-quality, and I would never suggest that my non-IS hits that IQ level, but the non-IS performs so well for me that I want nothing else...

well put. There is nothing that a monopod can't do. If you can afford a MK II then go get it but if you are in a budget then a non-IS w/ monopod will work very well.