70-200mm non-is or 70-200mm IS- (Sharpness for Sports)

Hey guys, just wanted to check in and see what the general consensus is..

I'm a Sports Shooter, and need to grab some faster glass for the upcoming low-light winter months. Like many, I'd love to save some $$ and go with the non-is, but don't want to sacrifice any sharpness or IQ.

Are they in the same league even though the non-is is an older lens?

Thanks in advance..

BTW: The Mark II is way out of reach...

Go with the Non-IS. Your shutter speed is going to be high so you're not going to utilize the IS feature.

For sharpness, my vote would go towards the Non-IS because the 1 less glass in the lens.

jbhswim wrote in post #11079450
Hey guys, just wanted to check in and see what the general consensus is..

I'm a Sports Shooter, and need to grab some faster glass for the upcoming low-light winter months. Like many, I'd love to save some $$ and go with the non-is, but don't want to sacrifice any sharpness or IQ.

Are they in the same league even though the non-is is an older lens?

Thanks in advance..

BTW: The Mark II is way out of reach...

1. I wouldn't go too crazy over the finest levels of sharpness since sports has so much fast movement, no carefully bracing shots, often poor lighting, etc.

2. The 2.8 non-IS is sharper, certainly anywhere near the center on FF and probably overall on APS-C and maybe even APS-H (some claim the IS becomes sharper near the edges on FF, not sure), and has less longitudinal CA/PF than the 2.8 IS MkI (Mk II is surely better though). I have heard some claims the IS has slightly faster focusing, not sure, didn't get to really test that.

The price difference between the two is like $400 or $500 dollars right?

You could rent one of each for a weekend (at the same time) and do your very own testing and that way it won't matter what anyone's opinion on some silly internet forum says you will know for sure.

jbhswim wrote in post #11079450
Hey guys, just wanted to check in and see what the general consensus is..

I'm a Sports Shooter, and need to grab some faster glass for the upcoming low-light winter months. Like many, I'd love to save some $$ and go with the non-is, but don't want to sacrifice any sharpness or IQ.

Are they in the same league even though the non-is is an older lens?

Thanks in advance..

BTW: The Mark II is way out of reach...

I went through this similar scenario for a different form of fast-moving action, which is belly dancers. I decided against IS, because it does not help you stop action. It can help keep the viewfinder display a less jumbly as you're panning around to capture the action, but it's otherwise completely useless for stopping action. Good hand-holding (or a monopod, perhaps) can do wonders though.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is pretty tough, but it's not indestructible. Mine lasted about 5 years before the IS system got very wonky, and then this affected the regular AF. After examining several years of EXIF data for belly dance festival events on lighted stages, even though some gigs were low-light, f/2.8 was not the most often used aperture -- it was more like f/3.5 quite a lot. As a result, for this environment, the 70-200mm f/4L USM (the non-IS f/4 ...) became my workhorse lens -- and it was very favorably priced. If you're doing fast action outdoors, it would seem like you have much more light available than the dim theatrical lighting. I generally work Tv = 1/160 in this environment. Of possible importance, it should be noted that the f/4L is significantly lighter then the f/2.8L. It has made a tremendous difference for hand-holding, particularly for multi-hour gigs. Just picking up my (though br0ken) f/2.8L freaked me out the other day ... it's quite heavy.

Good luck whatever you decide, and hope you grab some great action shots!

Until recently I had a 70-200 f4L non-IS which I only changed for a 100-400 as I wanted the extra focal length. The 70-200 was a great lens with (IMO) great sharpness. Over 5-6 years I never had any problems with the lens and never wished for IS.

Samples here: https://photography-on-the.net …893272&highligh​t=portugal all shots taken with the 70-200.

As stated above the IS is not necessary for high shutter speeds, so don't be afraid to go without it. Another option is look at the sigma 70-200 2.8. If you pixel peek you will be able to detect a small amount of additional sharpness with the L lens, but that's the only time. I recently switched to the new OS sigma from the I version of the L and I can not tell the difference in image quality. As it's been said here on POTN, the 70-200 2.8 is really just a luxury lens. I think it would be worth your while to rent two or three lens and see which one works best for you in your budget.

I will pay a bit more for that IS function.

Our hands can get tired and not be very steady, due to tiredness or just age or whatever factor.

lensmen wrote in post #11081158
I will pay a bit more for that IS function.

Our hands can get tired and not be very steady, due to tiredness or just age or whatever factor.

Well, if it was a bit more I'd agree with you, but in this case it's about double! I bought the Non-IS cuz I couldn't bear to pay $600 for $100 technology. I'm very happy with my decision and have no buyer's remorse, but almost everyone says that no matter what lens they buy if it's over 3 or 400 bucks

I went from f4 non-IS to the 2.8 IS I after only a year. I couldn't live without the IS when I take so many soccer and indoor sports images a month. I also shoot concerts, the IS really helps. If you can afford it, why not get the extra help?

My limited experience with the 2.8 IS MK I was it was soft beyond 155ish. I shoot a lot of U13/U14 outdoor soccer. I went for the 70-200 IS MKII and couldn't be happier. The MK II is crisp @ 2.8 200mm. Like everyone says, IS doesn't help with action. I bought it since I tend to shake a bit and the low light/slow shutter speed indoor shots at 1/25 are easy to get with the IS MKII. I need to look at a few other pics, but I think I have a few even slower that turned out well.

Also - like many have said before, 200mm is a bit short for soccer. For now it's fine with me. I wait for the action and still zoom a lot with my feet.

For indoor sports, something like the 135 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 would be more useful. 85's are cheap and they are good.

Any of the 70-200's will be sharp, If your looking to save some money I would suggest the 2.8 non IS and pick up a small mono pod when you need more stability. In most cases your going to have a pretty fast shutter that will negate the IS anyway. Of course its better to have IS but your paying a premium to get it.

A fast prime is the best if you really want pixel peeping sharpness but all of the lenses mentioned in this thread are sharp.

dwarrenr wrote in post #11081087
As stated above the IS is not necessary for high shutter speeds, so don't be afraid to go without it. Another option is look at the sigma 70-200 2.8. If you pixel peek you will be able to detect a small amount of additional sharpness with the L lens, but that's the only time. I recently switched to the new OS sigma from the I version of the L and I can not tell the difference in image quality. As it's been said here on POTN, the 70-200 2.8 is really just a luxury lens. I think it would be worth your while to rent two or three lens and see which one works best for you in your budget.

The sigma's have more PF and suffer from flare more than the 2.8 non-IS and a bit of a color cast, they might be a bit sharper at wide end and a touch less at long end, image quality is probably every bit as good as the IS mkI though and none of the three are bad. The AF is often less precise though which can be bad. None of the ones the newspaper had focused as precisely as the canon versions, everyone grabbed the canons first.

wombatHorror wrote in post #11083433
The sigma's have more PF and suffer from flare more than the 2.8 non-IS and a bit of a color cast, they might be a bit sharper at wide end and a touch less at long end, image quality is probably every bit as good as the IS mkI though and none of the three are bad. The AF is often less precise though which can be bad. None of the ones the newspaper had focused as precisely as the canon versions, everyone grabbed the canons first.

That could be true as I have not shot the Canon II, and I've only shot a couple of games with the new Sigma...I have not had any issue with AF and in fact it seems to out preform the 70-200 I that I have. But once again I have not shot the II which of course has improved AF from the I.