EF 70-200mm 2.8L II vs. EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II

Other than image stablization and an $800 price difference, what else does the "IS" version of the 70-200mm 2.8 have that the non "IS" doesn't?

Do they have identical glass elements, construction, tripod collars?

snegron wrote in post #17817566
Other than image stablization and an $800 price difference, what else does the "IS" version of the 70-200mm 2.8 have that the non "IS" doesn't?

Do they have identical glass elements, construction, tripod collars?

Heya,

Similar in every way, except the MK II has superior optics, superior AF (by a hair), and of course... modern IS.

If you don't need the IS, I would easily recommend the 70-200 F2.8L (non-IS). It's fairly sharp (sharper than the MKI IS version, not the IS MK II version) wide open. Very good lens. The MKII is just better in every way, if you're a pixel peeper. If you're a casual shooter and have no need for IS, the F2.8L non-IS is a great buy.

Very best,

Just to be clear, Canon has made three different versions of a 70-200/2.8. These are:

70-200/2.8L USM - Non-image stabilized and oldest of the three, this is a good performer (excellent by the standards of 10 years ago). Ring USM, fast focus etc.

70-200/2.8L IS USM - Really similar to the first lens, with IS. Some people claim this lens is a little less sharp than the non-IS lens, but I'd be hard pressed to spot a difference.

70-200/2.8 IS USM II - An update to the IS lens, this was one of the first of Canon's zooms to come out in the most recent era when everything seems to be a step up in optical performance. Other lenses in this group would be the 70-300L IS, the 24-70/2.8L II and the 100-400L II.

Between the first two lenses, the choice comes to whether you need IS or not. Between those and the new one, there is a step up in sharpness. I've owned all three and I can state that the difference is real and you can see it if you look. If you are making large prints and are picky about sharpness, the newer lens can be justified for the IQ I guess. These decisions are always tough because it depends on what you value, how picky you are, and how much difference a few $$$ means to your specific budget.

Confusing title. Both of those are the same lens. I thought you had gotten one with a problem, or something. The only II is the IS version. Got it now.

Common mistake. People think you pay so much more for IS but it's IS and MKII in the case of 70-200 2.8

The EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II is on a league of its own. You can pick up a copy from canon's refurbished site for under $1600 with one year warranty. You most keep checking because they go really fast.

If you don't need the wider aperture don't discount the 70-200mmL f/4 IS. With 4 stops of stellar image stabilization vs. 3, unless you're into action photography it's just as good in a much lighter and cheaper package.

silvex wrote in post #17820436
The EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II is on a league of its own. You can pick up a copy from canon's refurbished site for under $1600 with one year warranty. You most keep checking because they go really fast.

I'll definitely look into that. Thanks!

Nethawked wrote in post #17821161
If you don't need the wider aperture don't discount the 70-200mmL f/4 IS. With 4 stops of stellar image stabilization vs. 3, unless you're into action photography it's just as good in a much lighter and cheaper package.

I need the large aperture as I will be using it primarily for sports. If the optical formula were the same I would go for the less expensive option (2.8 non-IS version).