70-200 2.8L IS Users

I used to own a super sharp copy of the 70-200/2.8L NON-IS.

This image is typical for the type of sharpness I got with that lens wide open..

F2.8, 1/800s, 160mm

I have heard that the IS version is not as sharp. Can users with the IS version let me know if this is about what you can expect with your IS lenses? Maybe post some 100% samples too?

Thanks guys!

how much did you spend on that puppy?

apparently the IS version is not as sharp as the non-IS. But it is only really noticeable if you're pixel-peeping at 100%.

Honestly, I find no problem with my copy and it's more than acceptable.

Hmm, can't remember. The usual for a new 70-200/2.8L. I sold it to some lucky person last year.

Here is another.
F2.8, 1/3200, 125mm

Anyway, is this typical for sharpness on the IS lenses too?

sol95 wrote in post #6407537
apparently the IS version is not as sharp as the non-IS. But it is only really noticeable if you're pixel-peeping at 100%.

Honestly, I find no problem with my copy and it's more than acceptable.

Do you have any samples that are as sharp as the above?

mm, this was a 3.2 does that count? i'll try to find one at 2.8

http://www.flickr.com …tures/265375134​9/sizes/o/

(200mm, f3.2, ISO100, 1/1600)

3.2 is close, although,it's quite a different type of picture.
Thanks I really appreciate it.

yeah, some are found to be sharper than others...

BUT!!!

ALL 4 of the 70-200 models are FABULOUS. None of them are weak. So it's more a matter of comparing excellent to fantastic, and not good and bad.

Ok, so compare the image in my original post, representitive of the average sharpness of the non-IS version wide open to this one taken with the IS version. Should there be that much difference? (and this is a stationary object vs a fast moving object above).

IS Version
F2.8, 1/1000s, 145mm

drisley wrote in post #6407898
Ok, so compare the image in my original post, representitive of the average sharpness of the non-IS version wide open to this one taken with the IS version. Should there be that much difference? (and this is a stationary object vs a fast moving object above).

IS Version
F2.8, 1/1000s, 145mm

i'd say that the photographer didn't focus on her eyes in this picture. the focus plane indicates that he focused on the rock wall or her legs...so i don't think this is a good indication of sharpness, if you're looking for her eyes/face to be sharp.

100% crop from my copy of the IS version, f/2.8, no sharpening besides ACR default

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

100% crop, f/4, again no sharpening

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

another 100% crop at f/2.8, again no sharpening

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

70-200 F2.8 IS is very very sharp, no question about it. The only thing I have sharper is the 100mm F2.8 macro prime, but the 70-200 is close. As thousands of users will attest just buy it.

Link to 70-200 F2.8 IS reviews.