Thoughts on the 70-200 2.8 non IS?

Any thoughts on the 70-200mm 2.8 non IS version for sports? I have read that the newer IS version has better optics and AF , but I am on a budget at this time. I need to save the extra $800 for the future purchase of a 16-35mm 2.8.

I will be using it with a 7DMK2. My past experiences have been with Nikon, and I still own a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF D. At 2.8 the Nikon had little contrast. I got much better performance from 4.0 up. Noisy high ISO was a big problem for me, so I decided to jump over to Canon since it was time to upgrade from my old D200 anyway.

Back to the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) version though. Will I have to stop down to 4.0 to get better performance? Will I have focus issues (hunting, etc.) with it on my 7DMK2? Despite the great reviews I have read on the 4.0 version, I really prefer the 2.8 version for sports/stadium lighting issues.

Any known problems, issues, quirks with this lens I should know about?

p.s. I usually shoot with a monopod.

My experience is that the non IS 70-200 2.8L is sharper at 2.8 than the IS that came after it. Of course it could have been based on each copy of the lens I had/have, but that is how I feel.

Non IS is much lighter, and with a monopod it is very usable in low light, too. IS does not stop the movement, only shutter speed can do that, so the benefit of IS may vary. What IS will help with slightly is AF lock in low light, as it is easier for the camera to gather AF data when the lens is more still. With a monopod and calm hands that was no problem with the original either.

Thanks!

I agree it is a great lens for sports. I thought mine was better than the first IS version was.

Buy the non-is 2.8 and never look back. I did, and its one of the only lenses I haven't even thought about selling.

I shoot mainly sports by the way.

Why don't you rent it and the F4 IS for a couple of days? The two are at the same price point so it might be worth comparing the two. Of course, if you really need f2.8 then just rent the one lens

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17842275
Why don't you rent it and the F4 IS for a couple of days? The two are at the same price point so it might be worth comparing the two. Of course, if you really need f2.8 then just rent the one lens

A couple of weeks ago I was going to rent the IS and subsequently the non IS versions to test them out, but after doing some research I decided I needed to stick with the non IS version. My thoughts then were that I would most likely end up liking the IS version more, but it is out of my price range For all practical purposes I need to stick with the non IS version and work around its shortcomings.

For sports/action shots I would not be using IS anyway. 2.8 vs 4.0 does make a difference when shooting under less than ideal lighting. My biggest concern with the non IS version is regarding its optics. I wasn't thrilled with my Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 wide open, plus the AF/MF switch was cheaply made and required two trips to Nikon for repair. I don't want to go through those issues with Canon.

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17842275
Why don't you rent it and the F4 IS for a couple of days? The two are at the same price point so it might be worth comparing the two. Of course, if you really need f2.8 then just rent the one lens

I started with the Σ70-200 OS as my first 70-200 on apsc for sports/athletics. After a few years, I got tired of the size/weight of the 2.8 lens. I sold it and bought an f/4L IS, and shortly thereafter a 6D. To my mind, the f/4L IS is a completely different lens on FF, than the monster 2.8 on apsc. The 6D/f4L is an excellent general purpose setup. I can use 70mm on the 6D indoors. The apsc/2.8 combo is best deployed for action shooting. Sometimes I consider adding an 70-200 non-IS (or 200 2.8L II) to my collection. I certainly don't need IS on a lens that is going to be used most often at 1/500 and faster.

its an old lens. I would not own a 70-200 that was not stabilized. in fact after owning the 70-300L for a few years I would not own 70-200. my thoughts

ed rader wrote in post #17842863
its an old lens. I would not own a 70-200 that was not stabilized. in fact after owning the 70-300L for a few years I would not own 70-200. my thoughts

This is very interesting. I've considered a 70-300L for something a bit smaller than my 100-400L. I'd probably lose interest in my 70-200 f/4L IS if I had the 70-300L. The difference between 300mm and 400mm just isn't that big. I just can't get past the fact that my 100-400 is better (photozone.de data) at 300 than the 70-300 is at 300, and the 100-400 is as good at 400 as the 70-300 is at 300. I have no complaints about my 100-400L, wrt its optical performance. IS could be better, though.

If I got a 200mm f/2.8 (zoom or prime) it would be for use at f/2.8, and at shutter speeds not requiring IS. I've already got IS and other apertures covered.

My 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) arrived today. First impression is that it is very well built, a bit heavier than I expected.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to test it soon.

ed rader wrote in post #17842863
its an old lens. I would not own a 70-200 that was not stabilized. in fact after owning the 70-300L for a few years I would not own 70-200. my thoughts

I would think a 70-200/2.8 IS II would pair better with a 100-400 II than a 70-300L

snegron wrote in post #17848935
My 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) arrived today. First impression is that it is very well built, a bit heavier than I expected.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to test it soon.

Give a review after you do some test shots. I am also thinking about getting the non-IS version.

hikermk wrote in post #17852949
Give a review after you do some test shots. I am also thinking about getting the non-IS version.

Hopefully I'll be taking it out this weekend.

I bought my girlfriend the non-is over the holidays and it's fantastic. Side-by-side to my ISII, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless I check the EXIF.