lens comparison: Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses...

srron Loc: Courtice,On.

Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_10216_-24

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_12064_-24

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

srron wrote:

Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_10216_-24

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_12064_-24

The major difference seems to be the IS - stabilization. Steady is better than shaky. If you Google one vs the other, you will probably find comparisons.

The text says they're increased the speed and performance, etc. Here's a direct comparison. I believe higher numbers are better.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-versus-EF70-200mm-f-2.8L-USM___408_0_254_0

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Your quality of life would increase by $1100 if you went with the cheaper one...of course all your photos would likely suffer from camera shake. I have to admit, there are some nice advantages to having in-camera body lens stabilization...canon and Nikon sure jack up the price for lenses with stabilization. Highway robbery.

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

srron wrote:

Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_10216_-24

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_12064_-24

I did notice that the more expensive lens has an indication that it is New. Are you sure the other is new and not refurbished ?

sunshooter Loc: Coppell, TX (ouside Dallas)

Those are both new lenses. Personally, unless you suffer from either Parkinson's Disease or the DTs, my recommendation is to go with the less expensive lens. I've been using their 70-200 F/4 lens without stabilization, and I've never had a problem. The few times I have needed to shoot at slower shutter speeds, I have simply used either a tripod or a beanbag. Normally, the more you spend on a Canon "L" lens, the better the glass....but to me, there comes a point of diminishing returns. I'd pay more for the f/2.8, but probably not for the IS version. If you need to take a lot of low-light photos hand-held, of course, pay for the IS. If you use a tripod, you should turn off the IS anyway. Just my opinion, of course, and I'm sure that many will disagree with me. I hope this helps.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

srron wrote:

Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_10216_-24

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_12064_-24

Unless you are planning to use the lens at slow shutter speeds hand held, I'd go for the non IS.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

srron wrote:

Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses

srron, all of the mkll, L lenses are sharper than their mkl counterparts. The 70-200mk ll, is the sharpest of all the 70-200's.
That said, the f4, non IS model is as sharp or sharper than all except the new mkll.
Do keep in mind that the 2.8 IS models are considerably bigger and heavier than the other models. I personally prefer the non-IS 70-200, due to its size.
For sports and portraits I use primes that are considerably faster than the mkll, as I do not consider 2.8 to be fast. for the price of the mkll you can buy a small boatload of faster primes. The mkll is a beautiful lens, if it's what you need.
Good luck, with your purchase
SS.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Cdouthitt wrote:

Your quality of life would increase by $1100 if you went with the cheaper one...of course all your photos would likely suffer from camera shake. I have to admit, there are some nice advantages to having in-camera body lens stabilization...canon and Nikon sure jack up the price for lenses with stabilization. Highway robbery.

^^^Seriously... this is one of the MAIN reasons I went Sony when my put my Minolta film camera out to pasture.

Plus I had a whole cabinet full of Minolta lenses and my Sony mirrorless and P&S cameras were good performers.

But in body image stabilization is a MAJOR plus. :thumbup:

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

srron wrote:

Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in image quality between these two lenses

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_10216_-24

http://estore.canon.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_12152_10102_12064_-24

The 70-200mm/f2.8L II sure has a more advanced IS, but also the IQ is much improved over the earlier version. Flare control is superior compared with the earlier version, it is all-around a much improved version, better in every aspect.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

sunshooter wrote:

Those are both new lenses. Personally, unless you ... (show quote)

I agree with you. :-)

Kuzano

sunshooter wrote:

Those are both new lenses. Personally, unless you ... (show quote)

I also agree with you.... I became a staunch tripod/monopod user in the sixties and a reasonable price for a good tripod, and the commitment to use it, will return far more money to your budget than buying IS or VR on every lens you buy.

At the age of 70, I am fortunate to still be able to hand hold some shots fairly well, but I have used a tripod regularly since my thirties. Monopod is a close second and still as good as most IS and VR.

I do agree that money well spent on glass is good, but if you want to make the move to sharpness of images Out of The Camera, make the move to the new generation of camera's that are removing the AA filters from digital bodies. We've been sucking hind teat on that "tradition" of the camera manufacturer's for far too long.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Of COURSE... this problem could be avoided if one has a body with stabilization built in. ;)

amehta Loc: Boston

CHOLLY wrote:

Of COURSE... this problem could be avoided if one has a body with stabilization built in. ;)

To have a body with stabilization built in, drink one glass of wine before shooting. But only one glass. Three or more glasses and more instability is added.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

HA!