Canon 70-200 2.8L IS vs. Non-IS for Auto Focus--Is there a difference?

[dpmoondog]

I know this is an old, and perhaps tired, subject (IS vs. non-IS on Canon 70-200 2.8L), but I couldn’t find the one missing piece of info that I need to makemy finaldecision. I’m in the eleventh hour of deciding between IS or Non-IS of the Canon 70-200 2.8L. Two weeks ago, I was all on board for the IS version. Then, in reading various posts, I was shifting to the non-IS as I mostly shoot for my daughters soccer. I understood that I was giving up some IQ for the IS version, and IS would be of no value for sports. However, I also take shots for my company’s conferences (which are inside) as well as lots of family events (mostly inside)where I could really use the IS. And, in reading about the IQ differences between the two options, there appears that it’s only a “slight” difference. So, I was back on board to the IS version. However, one question remained that I couldn’t find an answer to… “is there any performance difference in “auto focus” between the IS and non-IS versions?”. I had seen one review where they raved about the auto focus in the non-IS version, and the same reviewer did not reference this on the IS version.


As a side note, I currently have the 70-200 4L and shoot with a 20D (I know I need a body upgrade—but I’m going with lenses first). I’m going for the 2.8 along with the 1.4 extender with the understanding that I will gain some very good flexibility to shoot sports along with indoor shots. Thanks in advance for any input on this old subject.

Regards,

Bill

[Fast Glass]

The IS version has up to twice as fast AF as the non-IS. Check this link http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/200109.html

[Sean Setters]

That's very interesting--I did not know that.

[iND]

I shot for sports years with he 20D and the 70-200 4L. It too is a great lens. Do not trade it you will only get $300-400 and you can not replace it for that price. It is still a very good lens.


The main reason I jumped to the 70-200 2.8 was for the speed for indoor sports. But 2.8 is still not fast enough and eventually ended with a 135 2.0 but with the fixed lens.


You question is IS. Remember IS only helps with camera shake. It does nothing for moving athletes. I choose the non IS after the same debate you are having. I have never regretted my decision. I take weddings now and use the 24-70 and the 70-200 the majority of the time. Neither have IS. I also use sinlgle point focus. Shake is not a problem. You could always use a monopod. Also remeber to turn the IS off if you mount on a mono or tri pod.


The IS is very popular. Either choice is great and you will never regret either decision.


Personally Im sticking with my non IS, and I dont use extenders.

[hotsecretary]

If you plan on hand holding shots at the max length, I'd grab the IS for sure.. if you plan to use a tri/monopod... you can live with the non-IS of course. I went with the 2.8 IS for the reason I want to hand hold shots and I would like the ability to do low light without the flash of course.



Part of my reasoning I'll most likely pickup the 24-70.. the 2.8 is sexy, but part of me is thinking, I should start looking at more primes one day, but zooms are so flexible!

[Chris White]

Bill,


This spring I was having a similar debate with myself, only it was between the 70-200 f/4 IS USM and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM. I decided to go with the 2.8 and have been thrilled with it since I opened the box.

I understood that I was giving up some IQ for the IS version, and IS would be of no value for sports.

Although the IQ may be better on the non-IS, in the real world most will tell you that you will not see it in your photos. The biggest complaint with merit may be the weight of the 2.8 IS version, but the photo quality makes up for that in my world. The bokeh on the 2.8 IS is unbelievable! I also shoot my kids sports and the 2.8 is great as the sun goes down. Having a f/4 version, you already realize this.


This is one of the first pictures I took with it at the Buffalo Zoo:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.60.Chris/IMG_5F00_0032rawaa.JPG[/img]


Cropped from EOS 50D with an EF70-200f/2.8L IS USM shot at f/3.5 Tv 1/400 ISO 100

I currently have the 70-200 4L and shoot with a 20D (I know I need a body upgrade—but I’m going with lenses first). I’m going for the 2.8 along with the 1.4 extender

As to your upgrade, I think most would agree with your "get the glass first" attitude. Just look at some of the photos on this site shot with various Rebell series bodies. You will certainly gain some advantage with a new(er) body, but I think glass will show the most. In addition, if you plan on using an extender the IS is a great thing to have. From Bryan's review:


"I frequently get asked ... Does IS continue to function with extenders mounted?
The answer is yes, and it actually becomes more valuable as apertures become narrower and focal lengths become longer."


I have a 50D and added a battery grip for two reasons, first it helps balance this lens and secondly I find that the 70-200 2.8 IS uses more battery than my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Mind you, I still get a lot of shots on just one battery, but with the two batteries in the grip I can fill well over a SanDisk Extreme III or IV 8GB card and have plenty of juice left.


My advice is to go with the IS version and you will not be disappointed. Just plan on spending a little extra time at the Y working out and you will not be as affected by the extra weight form your 70-200 f/4.[]


Regards,


Chris

[dpmoondog]

Thanks to all that replied. Next step is to pull out the CC and go shopping...


Cheers,


Bill