Difference between the IS version and the IS II version Is there any difference in quality between the IS and IS II versions? The IS II versions, although seems the newer one, is almost $60 cheaper than the IS version. Any idea why this is priced higher?Here is the lens I am talking about - http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0056E49MK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335916197&sr=8-1 Difference between the IS version and the IS II version Is there any difference in quality between the IS and IS II versions? The IS II versions, although seems the newer one, is almost $60 cheaper... » Read More Difference between the IS version and the IS II version Is there any difference in quality between the IS and IS II versions? The IS II versions, although seems the newer one, is almost $60 cheaper than the IS version. Any idea why this is priced higher?Here is the lens I am talking about - http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0056E49MK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335916197&sr=8-1 « Show Less
502425
I called Canon support today for this issue. After looking up the details, the support person told me that ISII has been on the market for 2 years and if I am looking at buying a new camera, many lenses advertised as IS will turn out to be ISII. He advised me to look at the lens instead of relying on the ad. Canon has improved image stabilizaation in updating IS to ISII.
577762
I am having the same questions. If anyone share some thoughts on this would be helpful..
669396
Nothing, same lens, same quality and you get extras to boot. I was Leary when ordering due to the big difference in price, but it's the same lens.
1332328
There is a silver version of the lens which can be a little less expensive. Or sony has a. 55-210mm lens which is much cheaper.
914060
This lens is the later version. It is much lighter to carry and is both faster and not nearly as heavy. Mine is near new but I am going to sell it only to buy a new prime lens that I want.
102716
Please go here: http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-PowerShot-SX50-HS-vs-Canon-PowerShot-SX500-IS and http://digital-cameras.findthebest.com/compare/606-638/Canon-PowerShot-SX50-HS-vs-Canon-PowerShot-SX500-IS
666202
I'm sure the only difference is the IS but IS can make a big difference in IQ especially at long focal lengths. Yes it's a lot more money but in my opinion, it's well worth the cost. You cant always shoot at high shutter speeds to avoid motion blur / camera shake
498787
I think it is to distinguish it from the MK II. You are correct, there is no non IS MKII. I think they are making sure the purchaser is aware that the optical improvements found in the IS MKII will not be found in this lens. We can debate whether the improvements and the IS is worth $1,000, especially in the light that the most problems found with the IS lens is with the IS mechanism. I have this lens, the older, non IS model and I love it. It suits me well and it performs great. There are few times I wish I went with the IS.
673188
Good question. I do not recall the K-5II being that price at the time I purchased, but I may have overlooked it. I do read various reviews and I probably based my decision on the tests as opposed to the price. see this for example: http://snapsort.com/compare/Pentax-K-5-II-vs-Pentax_K-5 Hope that answers your question.
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
91766
There are two different versions. I assume by "the $200 one" you mean the LA-EA1 or LA-EA3. These lens have extremelyt limited and slow autofocus, they do, however, support the rest of the lens electronics, so they are better then a dumb adapter. They are not something you want if you plan on using autofocus, however.The LA-EA2 and LA-EA4 both support full speed (DSLR speed) autofocus with almost every single A-mount lens. They even have a drive motor for the older lenses that do not have one built in.The difference between the LA-EA1/2 and LA-EA3/4 is that the 3/4 are built with full frame sensors in mind (like the upcoming A7 and A7R). If you have an NEX-7, you can use the E1 or E2 without worry. There are two different versions. I assume by "the $200 one" you mean the LA-EA1 or LA-EA3. These lens have extremelyt limited and slow autofocus, they do, however, support the rest of the lens electronics, so they are better then a dumb adapter. They are not something you want if you plan on using autofocus, however.The LA-EA2 and LA-EA4 both support full speed (DSLR speed) autofocus with almost every single A-mount lens. They even have a drive motor for the older lenses that do not have one built in.The difference between the LA-EA1/2 and LA-EA3/4 is that... » Read More There are two different versions. I assume by "the $200 one" you mean the LA-EA1 or LA-EA3. These lens have extremelyt limited and slow autofocus, they do, however, support the rest of the lens electronics, so they are better then a dumb adapter. They are not something you want if you plan on using autofocus, however.The LA-EA2 and LA-EA4 both support full speed (DSLR speed) autofocus with almost every single A-mount lens. They even have a drive motor for the older lenses that do not have one built in.The difference between the LA-EA1/2 and LA-EA3/4 is that the 3/4 are built with full frame sensors in mind (like the upcoming A7 and A7R). If you have an NEX-7, you can use the E1 or E2 without worry. « Show Less
124500
Jamie, I had the same question. Truth be told I don't have the Canon version. I am interning this summer with one of the nation's best commercial photographers and I asked him. He told me that the Canon lens is built a little better but he has both and he uses both. He told me I wouldn't be disappointed in this lens and I haven't been.
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
1746185
Better than non-IS as others have said and worth every penny IMO! I love the flexibility of the telephoto zoom so I would prefer this over the prime 400. Good luck with your decision...
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
483540
It's all in the name. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the newest of the product. Go to CanonUSA.com for your answer. The big part that confused you (I think) is the "IS II"). Good luck. Vic
1264648
This is the older version. The newest version is much sharper, focuses more accurately, and is definitely the lens you want to purchase.
19332
Thirding the question. Is there any new element and is the optical quality the same? How would a better lens be cheaper than the previous version?