p.3 #1 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
PetKal wrote:
For quality in build and performance, and for a relatively reasonable price, get the Pipe or 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.....you are not likely to be disappointed with either lens.
The L II IS looks sharper all over the frame wide open to me. I am not sure if there would be a non IS version (II) it again could top it. If, it must be that sharp that images cut into ones eyeballs, I guess ...
p.3 #2 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Ralph Conway wrote:
The L II IS looks sharper all over the frame wide open to me. I am not sure if there would be a non IS version (II) it again could top it. If, it must be that sharp that images cut into ones eyeballs, I guess ...
R.
I agree that 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII surpasses them all, however, I understand the OP is looking to spend no more than $1,000 on a 70-200 zoom.
p.3 #3 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
OP I would get the 70-200 F4 IS over the 2.8 non-IS. You will be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds with IS that negates the need for 2.8 lens for non-fast moving subjects. If you will be primarily shooting action, then the 2.8 is likely the better option.
p.3 #4 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
The 70-200 2.8 non-IS is excellent and if your budget is $1k, you cannot buy a better lens for that money. I used to have one (have an IS Mk II now) and loved it.
I found that at 70mm it was visibly soft wide open and only improved marginally by stopping down. By 85mm or so, this was gone and the lens was sharp at all apertures all the way to 200mm. Yes, the Mk II has better IQ everywhere and is tack sharp at all apertures and focal lengths, but its also 2.5 times the price.
Buy the lens used and enjoy! If you decide to upgrade in the near future, you can recoup most if not all of your investment. I bought mine as a refurb like 6 years ago and sold it a few months ago for more than I paid for it to get the Mk II.
Speaking of refurbs, Canon has them right now for $1159 with 90 day warranty.
p.3 #5 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Had em all and it's the second best of the 70-200 2.8's One is the MKII hard to beat that lens I have also owned the f/4's liked both but 2.8 is the only way to go. I have also had the MKI IS and I would take the non any day.
I was in the same boat was looking for the non IS in a WTB but ended up getting the 135 f/2 so how long I have that lens before trading for the zoom?
p.3 #6 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
I have the non IS and the MkII. They are both sharp. If I could hold a lens as solid as I used to (very frustrating), I would just keep my non IS but sadly I need the IS. So my non IS goes but it is a good lens.
p.3 #7 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
jamato8 wrote:
I have the non IS and the MkII. They are both sharp. If I could hold a lens as solid as I used to (very frustrating), I would just keep my non IS but sadly I need the IS. So my non IS goes but it is a good lens.
MAn I hear you here it seems like I am waving a Canadian flag looking through the VF this is for you Peter
p.3 #8 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Had em all and it's the second best of the 70-200 2.8's One is the MKII hard to beat that lens I have also owned the f/4's liked both but 2.8 is the only way to go. I have also had the MKI IS and I would take the non any day.
I was in the same boat was looking for the non IS in a WTB but ended up getting the 135 f/2 so how long I have that lens before trading for the zoom?
Mike sold me his f/2.8 non-IS and it was a great lens. (So was the drainpipe that he sold me.) You will be happy with any of these lenses.
p.3 #9 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
I bought my 70-200 f2.8 non-IS in early 2005. I loved it and it loved me back by producing a lot of money making wedding photos. I played with 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk I and decided not to upgrade, even when the low light environment in many wedding venues would benefit from the IS, however when the 70-200 f2.8 Mk II came, I could not ignore it any more. It is attached to my 5D III on every wedding.
If you don't need IS the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS is a great value and wonderful lens.
p.3 #10 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
It is a fantastic lens at a very good price. I've had mine for about 7 years. Sure, I'd like the vII lens with it's IS and ability to use 2x when necessary. For now though, I have continued producing excellent images with mine and feel it's one of my sharper lenses.
p.3 #11 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
I own it now and love it. It's sharp wide open, has great colors and contrast. It's only downside is that it's going to be heavier/slower than the prime. I'd much rather have this lens/range than a prime. YMMV.
p.3 #13 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
well, i ended up going with the 135L.
i'm still not sure if the versatility is going to be there, but the pros outweighed the cons for me - at least on paper. i was simply too concerned that i wouldn't want to haul the 70-200 2.8 around with me, due to the size and conspicuousness. plus the IQ of the 135 and f/2, obviously.
