So all you other photographers on here are in agreement with the fact stated that both of these lenses are world beaters, and far superior to thier predecesors. If you have also owned the early versions to both these lenses you will be aware that they are both sharper and the resolving power of the old 70-200 2.8L will leave the newer IS version miles behind, there is no comarison between the quality in these two, The non IS version is also quicker to focus and snaps in. The newer IS version tends to hunt more and also flares quite heavily as does the24-70 2.8L. I have also owned all the lenses stated and ok in low light image stabilisation can be handy but with the reduced noise in the later digital cameras it doesnt pose any noticle problem using higher ISO to compensate for the lower light situations.
As regards expecting quality photographs just as a result of using L series glass, as any we all know. its not the camera or the lens but the composition and reading the light present within that composition. I have also seen photographs taken from pin hole cameras and older cameras like the voigtlander with color scopar which i would be pround to have on my walls.
Investing thousands into the state of the art' ' Canon'' lenses does not automatically give one quality images but everyone should be aware of that and although i have 5 L series lenses i quite often have a preferance for using Nikon lenses like the 28mm Ais lens with adaptor ring on my canon cameras and also
believe in some other areas other lens manufactures have far more to offer.
So all you out there believe that each review on here is accurate and unbiased ?
