Upgrade to 70-200 f2.8 IS II from non IS

Has anyone upgraded from the Canon 70-200 f2.8 non IS to the new IS model and seen any major difference in sharpness/colour/contr​ast.

Whilst we are into the last week of the Canon Spring Cashback in the UK, I am pondering the upgrade for my 5D MKIII. I shoot mostly portraits of my kids aged 2 and 4 but will want to use it eventually for them partaking in sport when they get older.

Either that or just buy the 135mm f2 prime instead of the upgrade and keep my non IS.

Anyone want to chip in with some views, greatly appreciated.

I had both 2.8 Non IS and IS II. Honestly both have excellent image quality and any real world differences would be splitting hairs but having the new IS would probably give you more keepers assuming your not always shooting at a fast shutter. The IS II also has a closer MFD.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15956454
I had both 2.8 Non IS and IS II. Honestly both have excellent image quality and any real world differences would be splitting hairs but having the new IS would probably give you more keepers assuming your not always shooting at a fast shutter. The IS II also has a closer MFD.

Agree and IS II works much better with TCs from what I hear.

I had the non IS...sold it to get the 135....which I loved.

Sold the 135 and my 85L for the 70-200 IS mkII...not missing either of the primes. This lens is excellent. Love having the zoom again.

IS is amazing with a long lens.

hand held, 70-200 Mk I, ISO 800, 1/20th, 2.8 @200mm

I agree. I considered the 135L + 70-200 F2.8 or F4 IS combo, but ended up choosing the 70-200 F2.8 MKII because it did the most in one package and I knew it would see a LOT of use as my kids grow (currently 7 and 3 yrs old). I wanted IS, so that played a role in the decision as well.

Having the 5DIII, I think you could safely bump ISO one stop to compensate for the difference in aperture between the 135L and the 70-200 MKII. Fixed focal length and lack of IS may be more difficult to compensate for in some situations, especially with kids like mine who rarely stand still for more than a second.

Jasonfire124 wrote in post #15956417
Has anyone upgraded from the Canon 70-200 f2.8 non IS to the new IS model and seen any major difference in sharpness/colour/contr​ast.

Whilst we are into the last week of the Canon Spring Cashback in the UK, I am pondering the upgrade for my 5D MKIII. I shoot mostly portraits of my kids aged 2 and 4 but will want to use it eventually for them partaking in sport when they get older.

Either that or just buy the 135mm f2 prime instead of the upgrade and keep my non IS.

Anyone want to chip in with some views, greatly appreciated.

Keep in mind that the IS is a non issue with sports and this lens. And for portraiture you have a controlled light situation. So again IS a non issue. That being said, I would not want to give up my IS in my 70-200 IS 2.8 Mk I. Its great for candid shots in low light situations. Lot of people upgrade from the non IS to IS. I went straight to the IS to avoid the "buy twice" scenario. Glad I did. Now I have to figure out if I want to upgrade to the Mk II. Yikes.

BTW, in all honesty, I do use my IS in sports. While my little guy is injured this year, he has spent some time in goalie (lacrosse, injured hip, cant run), and when the the night falls and the sky is covered, I put on the IS for goalie shots. Lens is trained on the goalie, no panning, firing off 8fps. If I'm panning, I tend to make sure the IS is off. I don't usually run into a low battery issue being I'm gripped. Good luck.

Grumpy_one wrote in post #15957054
Keep in mind that the IS is a non issue with sports and this lens. And for portraiture you have a controlled light situation. So again IS a non issue. That being said, I would not want to give up my IS in my 70-200 IS 2.8 Mk I. Its great for candid shots in low light situations. Lot of people upgrade from the non IS to IS. I went straight to the IS to avoid the "buy twice" scenario. Glad I did. Now I have to figure out if I want to upgrade to the Mk II. Yikes.

BTW, in all honesty, I do use my IS in sports. While my little guy is injured this year, he has spent some time in goalie (lacrosse, injured hip, cant run), and when the the night falls and the sky is covered, I put on the IS for goalie shots. Lens is trained on the goalie, no panning, firing off 8fps. If I'm panning, I tend to make sure the IS is off. I don't usually run into a low battery issue being I'm gripped. Good luck.

IS mode II is for panning shots, in my limited use it seems to work well.

I started with 70-200 non IS second hand for a bargian of 650 eur, I also had 85L and 135L. Then I sold 70-200 non IS and 85L for the IS II. Now my final basic modelling lenses are 135L (compact) and 70-200 II. Both perfect IQ basically, no hassle with slow af or only 1 eye sharp, but razorfast-razorsharp and creamy bokeh. Yes between 135mm-200mm IS is recommended for non sports.

hes gone wrote in post #15957086
=he's gone;15957086]IS mode II is for panning shots, in my limited use it seems to work well.

Most of my panning is when the player is running by the sideline where I'm at and I'm zoomed in, it's typically where I'm getting my best shots. Across the field zoomed out I notice the IS working. I'll have to pay more attention for the closer shots and experiment in mode II again. Sometimes you get stuck in these ruts. Thanks for the reminder.

I started with a 70-200 f4 about 10 years ago, then 2.8 IS, 2.8 non-IS, and now the 2.8 MKII.

All of the lenses were very good and like someone else said, i'd be splitting hairs in determining a better copy. They are probably easily see differences if you open side-by-side photos, but all are very good.

My last upgrade non IS 2.8 to 2.8 MKII was strictly for the wow factory and what some say is one of the best Canon zooms. I have not been disappointed, but my older non IS was pretty good already. I wouldn't say it has a been a huge upgrade, but a small incremental one.

stan23 wrote in post #15957248
I started with a 70-200 f4 about 10 years ago, then 2.8 IS, 2.8 non-IS, and now the 2.8 MKII.

All of the lenses were very good and like someone else said, i'd be splitting hairs in determining a better copy. They are probably easily see differences if you open side-by-side photos, but all are very good.

My last upgrade non IS 2.8 to 2.8 MKII was strictly for the wow factory and what some say is one of the best Canon zooms. I have not been disappointed, but my older non IS was pretty good already. I wouldn't say it has a been a huge upgrade, but a small incremental one.

Makes me wonder about upgrading from the Mk I IS. I'm still happy with mine. Just made the leap to the 24-70 MkII. I'm done for awhile (5DIII is on the horizon).

Grumpy_one wrote in post #15957262
Makes me wonder about upgrading from the Mk I IS. I'm still happy with mine. Just made the leap to the 24-70 MkII. I'm done for awhile (5DIII is on the horizon).

Solid plan!

I don't think that you are going to see as much improvement from keeping the crop and upgrading to the MkII as you will get from keeping the lens and upgrading the crop to the 5DIII.

The FF will give you 1.6x better resolution, I don't think that the MkII will give you this kind of improvement.

Of course, you will not see this unless you crop the photo heavily or print poster size photos.

I am going the same way, once I sort out the 24-70 MkII... (crossing fingers...).

Grumpy_one wrote in post #15957262
Makes me wonder about upgrading from the Mk I IS. I'm still happy with mine. Just made the leap to the 24-70 MkII. I'm done for awhile (5DIII is on the horizon).

If you are happy with the MKI, I don't really see a need. I only changed out my non-IS 2.8 because of the Canon sale about a month back and I really wanted to see what the hype is about.

I wasn't exactly blown away like most folks are--again--maybe if you post side-by-side photos and I zoom to 100% on the corners, I can see differences, but honestly in what I do and use it for (portraits) it's not a game changer for me.

stan23 wrote in post #15957354
If you are happy with the MKI, I don't really see a need. I only changed out my non-IS 2.8 because of the Canon sale about a month back and I really wanted to see what the hype is about.

I wasn't exactly blown away like most folks are--again--maybe if you post side-by-side photos and I zoom to 100% on the corners, I can see differences, but honestly in what I do and use it for (portraits) it's not a game changer for me.

Thanks all for your responses especially the last comment as I have 3 days left in the Canon sale and really don't want to be pushed to spend on that lens when I could get another L lens for portraits. I have been reading all about the 50 1.2 L over the last hour and I have looked at lots of images on flickr. Could sway me to the 50L before the 135L. Decisions decisions ??