70-200 F4 v 70-200 F4 IS

j3w3ll3r

j3w3ll3r

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,557
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Hiya

looking to get one of the above, im pretty sure I want the non IS based on price and weight....but

for an extra £150-200 I could get the IS, i could probably suffer the weight but how great is the advantage

I Have read loads of reviews and the non IS gets rave reviews and the IS version Very good

Has anyone used both

I also have a thread in the wanted section

Cheers

Stephen
 
j3w3ll3r said:
Hiya

looking to get one of the above, im pretty sure I want the non IS based on price and weight....but

for an extra £150-200 I could get the IS, i could probably suffer the weight but how great is the advantage

I Have read loads of reviews and the non IS gets rave reviews and the IS version Very good

Has anyone used both

I also have a thread in the wanted section

Cheers

Stephen
Click to expand...

When you find out the real price difference, which is more than double that, it might make the decision easier.

The IS version is a completely different lens, and better all round. In addition to IS, it's sharper, weather sealed, and has circular aperture blades.
 
Well from the reviews you would know that the IS version is sharper, it is supposed to be 'the' sharpest zoom Canon has built according to some sources.

The advantage is only there if you will be using the lens with slowish shutter speeds - if you want to use it for sport/action then I would save a bit and just get the non-IS.
 
Is there much of a weight difference?

Can't compare because I only have the IS version, but very impressed with it and glad I paid the extra because the stabilisation to me is a real bonus, enables me to get shots that wouldn't be possible otherwise
 
deleted as lifes to short to be grumpy
 
Last edited:
DizMatt said:
anything fast moving f2.8 is the way forward...or monster ISOs
Click to expand...

I personally don't believe the 2.8 is worth the cost unless you just have a lot of money to spend or can justify it because you are a pro.

Its one stop difference - the effect of which is often over- exaggerated. Not to mention the 2.8 is a heavier bulkier lens, and doesn't perform as well optically as the F4 IS.

I've had the non-IS in the past and it was a great lens - although I would want the IS version if I was to re-buy a 70-200 now.
 
Last edited:
j3w3ll3r said:
thanks for your reply, i think your tone is at best "pig headed"

maybe you should look at the prices and see how much an IS edition really costs they are available used and the difference is as i said

someone told me this was the friendliest forum on the net...
Click to expand...

Easy tiger. Richard is far too decent a guy to be being anything than helpful here. You've misread him for sure so maybe a wind in of the neck is in order. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
Easy tiger. Richard is far too decent a guy to be being anything than helpful here. You've misread him for sure so maybe a wind in of the neck is in order. ;)
Click to expand...

really...

thanks for your replys
 
Thought it was a genuine sounding sort of answer too and that's coming from someone who can get a bit stroppy with rude responders
 
I have used the non-IS only for a very short time.. but the IS version I owned for 2 years. The IS version is better optically though the difference is not huge. I much preferred the IS version on my crop body (40D) mainly because there often wasn't enough light to handhold the non-IS with the 1.6x crop added in.

With the non-IS at this time of the year I was basically doing ISO 800, f/4 and 1/500s almost always - or pushing up to ISO 1600 which I loathed. The IS version allowed me to get much more shots and maybe even close the aperture a stop or two now and then. Your mileage may vary as I live in Finland, where light levels are very low in the wintertime.

I didn't really realize just how dark it can be outside here in the autumn.. took this picture in November 2010:

1174779354_gjAMF-L.jpg


Taken at 2 pm on a clear day, it's ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/200s.. Similar exposure to night time with bright street lights!

What kind of photography are you getting it for? I think it is key to answering your question. If you need to do any shooting in bad light, just get the IS.
 
have read it again, still looks unnecessary to me, but maybe i jumped, life's to short to be grumpy
 
vaizki said:
I have used the non-IS only for a very short time.. but the IS version I owned for 2 years. The IS version is better optically though the difference is not huge. I much preferred the IS version on my crop body (40D) mainly because there often wasn't enough light to handhold the non-IS with the 1.6x crop added in.

With the non-IS at this time of the year I was basically doing ISO 800, f/4 and 1/500s almost always - or pushing up to ISO 1600 which I loathed. The IS version allowed me to get much more shots and maybe even close the aperture a stop or two now and then. Your mileage may vary as I live in Finland, where light levels are very low in the wintertime.

I didn't really realize just how dark it can be outside here in the autumn.. took this picture in November 2010:

1174779354_gjAMF-L.jpg


Taken at 2 pm on a clear day, it's ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/200s.. Similar exposure to night time with bright street lights!

What kind of photography are you getting it for? I think it is key to answering your question. If you need to do any shooting in bad light, just get the IS.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply

its just really a replacement for my 55-250

I am pretty new to photography and am finding my feet, but i have a policy of giving myself a fighting chance by getting decent gear, then i can only blame myself when the pictures look poo which they invariably will
 
The23rdman said:
Easy tiger. Richard is far too decent a guy to be being anything than helpful here. You've misread him for sure so maybe a wind in of the neck is in order. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. Richard has been around for a while and he has been very helpful to a lot of us. Not to forget, he is right about the price difference. Having recently bought a 70-200 f/4 IS from here, I know the price difference is closer to £300 than what the OP has suggested.
 
I would get the IS, its on my 'to get' list after reading many reviews.

I've also gotta agree with the other guys, Richard has been one of the most helpful guy on here in my 2yrs or so on this site. There are far far grumpier guys on here for sure.

I also find his price comparison above to be true assuming you are comparing similar condition and age of lenses etc.
 
Also think you might notice the lack of IS seeing as your current lens has it, basically its 300 quid more if buying s/hand
 
I have the 70-200 f4 non is. I know people say the IS version is sharper but my version is plenty sharp for me - I'd be surprised if you really noticed the difference in this respect.
 
I have no real exact use as im still finding my feet, I suppose general walkabout to complement the 15-85 that i have. I will then add a 100-400 or 150-500mm so should have most bases covered

Most of my pictures that are not macro involve my dog
 
akr said:
I have the 70-200 f4 non is. I know people say the IS version is sharper but my version is plenty sharp for me - I'd be surprised if you really noticed the difference in this respect.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

my copy is nice and sharp and i love it.:thumbs:
 
j3w3ll3r said:
I have no real exact use as im still finding my feet, I suppose general walkabout to complement the 15-85 that i have. I will then add a 100-400 or 150-500mm so should have most bases covered

Most of my pictures that are not macro involve my dog
Click to expand...


I would avoid buying the lens until you are sure what you want it for....because more than likely you will realise afterwards that it isn't quite what you needed. (from experience here :lol:)

For instance I personally wouldn't buy both a 70-200 and a 100-400 or 150-500, simply because I think it wouldn't be the best way to spend the same amount of money.

The 100-400 and 150-500 are both one of those lenses with a massive zoom range that is useful, but as a result compromise on IQ. I were to buy a 70-200 I would pair it with a prime like the 300 F4L or 400 5.6L for the image quality... not to mention they are cheaper than the 100-400L.

Also if you want to photograph your dog then the 150-500 isn't that useful - I get muddled with the versions but F5-6.3 is pretty slow, and you won't need that much reach. The 70-200 is more than enough for that purpose. Bird photography is what the 150-500 seems to get most use in, as for its price it gives you quite a lot of reach... (at the cost of IQ )

Have you considered the 70-300L? Relatively new lens which seems to get good reviews.

Hope thats not too confusing!
 
Is it worth you hiring them and giving them a go? I was recently tempted by the 70-200 F2.8 non is and hired it for the weekend but found it surprisingly heavy. Really glad I tried it first before spending all that money
 
travellingcello said:
I would avoid buying the lens until you are sure what you want it for....because more than likely you will realise afterwards that it isn't quite what you needed. (from experience here :lol:)

For instance I personally wouldn't buy both a 70-200 and a 100-400 or 150-500, simply because I think it wouldn't be the best way to spend the same amount of money.

The 100-400 and 150-500 are both one of those lenses with a massive zoom range that is useful, but as a result compromise on IQ. I were to buy a 70-200 I would pair it with a prime like the 300 F4L or 400 5.6L for the image quality... not to mention they are cheaper than the 100-400L.

Also if you want to photograph your dog then the 150-500 isn't that useful - I get muddled with the versions but F5-6.3 is pretty slow, and you won't need that much reach. The 70-200 is more than enough for that purpose. Bird photography is what the 150-500 seems to get most use in, as for its price it gives you quite a lot of reach... (at the cost of IQ )

Have you considered the 70-300L? Relatively new lens which seems to get good reviews.

Hope thats not too confusing!
Click to expand...

Lol, no it's very helpfull
I hadn't considered the 70-300
I had discounted the 28-300 but will take a look
Thanks
 
Rollbar1919 said:
Is it worth you hiring them and giving them a go? I was recently tempted by the 70-200 F2.8 non is and hired it for the weekend but found it surprisingly heavy. Really glad I tried it first before spending all that money
Click to expand...

It's not a bad idea, i will look into it, thanks
 
Also look at the Tamron 70-300 VC, I recently purchased one and my copy is incredibly sharp at all focal lengths and the stabilization is very good.
 
j3w3ll3r said:
Lol, no it's very helpfull
I hadn't considered the 70-300
I had discounted the 28-300 but will take a look
Thanks
Click to expand...

There is a lot of choice around this focal length range, from Canon and also third parties. If you're still finding your way, I would suggest either buying cheap, like the excellent little 55-250, or used. You can then sell on for very little or no loss.

You could find that you need IS (personally, I would not buy a lens like this without) or that a bit more focal length would be handy. The 70-300 IS has both and is highly rated for around the same money as the 70-200L 4 non-IS. Or push the boat out for the superb 70-300L, but then you're up to f/5.6 at the long end.

Dogs tend to move around, in which case servo focusing ability could be vital - you need both a good camera and lens for that to work well.

It's all a different set of compromises and personal choices.

PS Westfield :thumbs: There are a few of us petrol heads on here :D
 
I hired the 70-200 IS and spent most of the time using it without the IS! It was a lovely sunny day so did not think that the drain on the battery was worth it. Having said that i hired it to go to a one off (for me) photo day, so it was an insurance policy to have the IS.

I now own a NON IS. There are some occasions that i have to push the ISO / or shutter speeds a little but i do not feel like i miss the IS a great deal.

Some shots here through my 70-200 f/4 L http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/tags/canon70200mmf4l/


I also have a 100-400 and think its a great combo. OK so there is crossover on the zoom ranges, but i got the option to have a heavy super zoom or a lighter walkabout zoom.
 
Thanks for your replies I will read the thread fully again when I get in as I'm doing this from my phone whilst working
 
I used to own the IS version a few years ago but downsized and sold it.
Last friday i finally gave in and found a second-hand non IS for £400 in Cameraworld (overpriced). I had forgotten how much nicer these lenses are compared to my 70-300IS.
I took about 150 pics on the way home and all came out well, again, much nicer than my 70-300IS. The thing that struck me was (as another poster has said) how high a ISO i was using to get a steady shot. Admitted this was of people so i had to use a higher shutter speed but it made me realise i would miss IS. I really dont mind shooting at high ISO's but its nicer not to have to and all my zooms have IS and it felt strange not having it.
As i felt the lens was a bit on the high side, considering it has a fairly loose zoom ring and didnt have a box etc i took it back and ordered a IS version from Amazon.
That arrived yesterday and i really dont notice much difference in IQ.
I do notice i can shoot slower (1/10 at 200mm) and get more keepers.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that while the 70-300IS has been mentioned ive found it's IQ to be inferior to both 70-200 lenses, and its even worse once you get over 200mm so i think its a false economy if you realyl want a 70-200. Having worked my way up to some good lenses ive wasted a lot of money and realised i should have go the best i could afford in the first place.

Just saying.

As others have said, its worth getting the IS version if you can afford it. I cant really, nor can i justify it other than to say if im paying around £450 for a lens that ill leave at home because i know ill have problems in lower light then spending more on a lens ill be confident taking out does seem worthwhile to me.
 
Last edited:
Last friday i finally gave in and found a second-hand non IS for £400 in Cameraworld (overpriced)

I went to look at this lens in Camera World at Chelmsford where I live and it was sold, thank you I think u saved me from spending £400 on thewrong thing :D
 
j3w3ll3r said:
Last friday i finally gave in and found a second-hand non IS for £400 in Cameraworld (overpriced)

I went to look at this lens in Camera World at Chelmsford where I live and it was sold, thank you I think u saved me from spending £400 on the wrong thing :D
Click to expand...

Actually it was the London shop that i got it from. I had looked on their website on Thursday and could only see the one, and that was listed as being in London.

It was in ok condition (for a lens with a 2005 date code) but the rings were quite loose and a bit faded, plus there was no box and a very dog eared manual. I felt i would loose more money selling it in that condition as the plan was to upgrade to IS as soon as i could.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Very nice image Sye.

While i have peoples attention, do any of you use a 3rd party tripod ring for this lens?
I need to get one but the Canon one is very expensive and the only 3rd party one ive seen is said to scratch the lens casing.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

For the 70-200L 4? I've tried three cheapo ones. First one marked the lens until I took a file to it, then the lock unscrewed itself while I had a sling-strap attached to it.

So I bought another one that turned out to be made of plastic (no mention of that in the Amazon ad) and was simply not capable of supporting the lens properly. So I sent that back and got another one, which turned out to be the same as my original with a slightly different paint job, so that went back too. No probs with any of the Amazon Marketplace sellers on that score.

Now I'm back where I started, and I'll see if a locking washer can make it secure. A collar is nice to have, but the lens is quite light so you can often get by without one even on a tripod. People say the copies are the same as the genuine Canon ones, but they're not. Whether they're 'good enough' is a different question.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
For the 70-200L 4? I've tried three cheapo ones. First one marked the lens until I took a file to it, then the lock unscrewed itself while I had a sling-strap attached to it.

So I bought another one that turned out to be made of plastic (no mention of that in the Amazon ad) and was simply not capable of supporting the lens properly. So I sent that back and got another one, which turned out to be the same as my original with a slightly different paint job, so that went back too. No probs with any of the Amazon Marketplace sellers on that score.

Now I'm back where I started, and I'll see if a locking washer can make it secure. A collar is nice to have, but the lens is quite light so you can often get by without one.
Click to expand...

Hi Rich

Can't visualise the tripod ring and mount, certainly a star washer will help, but can you see the end of the thread? If so if you drill a tiny hole at the end of it and thread a piece of lock wire through, it will stop it undoing itself all the way (if that's what happened perviously)

With regards to the OP and the 2 lenses, I've had the F4 non IS and it was a belter, if I could gave afforded the IS I would have bought it though, as I find the IS helps me out on occasions where other
support just isn't possible.
 
andyred said:
Hi Rich

Can't visualise the tripod ring and mount, certainly a star washer will help, but can you see the end of the thread? If so if you drill a tiny hole at the end of it and thread a piece of lock wire through, it will stop it undoing itself all the way (if that's what happened perviously)

With regards to the OP and the 2 lenses, I've had the F4 non IS and it was a belter, if I could gave afforded the IS I would have bought it though, as I find the IS helps me out on occasions where other
support just isn't possible.
Click to expand...

Cheers Andy. There are ways around it, but I just thought for another £15 I'd get a ready-made solution.

There's no problem securing it, you just need to be able to loosen it easily to turn the lens for a vertical, and you have to undo it completely to take it off. Star washer will maybe do the trick, rubber band works for now :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top