 Oliver Anderson |
70-200 2.8IS VS. non IS I have a question about the sharpness of this lens. I've got both the 70-200 2.8IS and the non (IS). I was told that for portrait photography that the non IS is sharper even though the elements are less. The store told me they needed to add to the elements in order to compensate. Has anyone found this to be correct. If so I'll keep both rather than trading in the non IS for another one. I photograph both motorsports and models so if this info is correct I'm set.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
If you have both you don't need to ask, you can compare them directly yourself. I have heard that the non-IS is marginally sharper, but have never seen an actual demonstration of that. I suspect that any difference is so slight that it can only be measured in a lab setting and makes no practical difference in actual use.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Can't tell on the monitor but am going to try to see if I can find a difference in print.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
I have read many reports/reviews online, and all seem to corroborate that the Non-IS version has better resolution. However, it is probably much more theoretical than visual, I'm sure. I think your choice should be made simply on what you plan to do with the lens - If handholding is necessary, buy the IS. If you will use it on a tripod, buy the Non-IS. But do you really need to own both?? Owning both is sort of like buying two new cars because you can't decide on the color. Not a problem, of course, if you're independently wealthy. Michael H. Cothran
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I'm fortunate enough to own both because one of the cameras I purchased came with it. Anyways I read the same reports today, I will end up keeping both and using them the way both Michael and Jon suggested. I appreciate your input.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||