Finally! 70-200 f/2.8L

Tommydigi wrote in post #14609376
IS or not that is an awesome lens.

Is there an IQ hit between the II and the non-is versions? or are they about the same? (I'd assume they are close since canon chose to discontinue the mk1, but kept the non-is...for some reason) Reason I ask is I'm considering switching out the mk2 for the non-is. Save's me 1000$ and I don't need the IS for what I shoot, if IQ is the same I don't see why not.

Congrats Tim, you will love it! Great portrait lens, too. I own both the non-IS and the MkII IS versions. The later is not twice the performance at twice the cost lol. I'm able to achieve the same results in bright outdoor subjects. If I needed to get a more stable shot on the non-IS, an inexpensive monopod did the trick The IS will help in lower light situations like gyms where a monopod would not be conducive.

I had the 2.8 Non IS and IS II and honestly I felt both lenses where awesome, I only sold them because the size/weight and for how I shoot I rarely need that sort of lens, the 70-300L fits me much better.

The IS on the II certainly helps in many situations. I did some video where I hand held the camera for 2 mins and you would have thought I had it on a monopod. The II also has a closer focusing distance which helps indoors but overall IQ seemed to be splitting hairs.

Obviously shooting something at 1/500 both lenses are top performers so if your considering cost, assuming you go used, the non IS is a great option.

I had the same question. Thanks for the answer.