70-200F4L now, or hold on for 70-200F4L IS

ozyboyross

ozyboyross

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,081
Name
Ozy
Edit My Images
Yes
As above really, is it worth holding out a month saving few more pennies and getting the 70-200F4IS over the 70-200F4L non IS??

I will be using it mainly for daylight outdoor stuff, tracks, zoo's etc.

So which one and why?
 
Jchaplin said:
If you look at the other buying options on the right hand side you can have one from amazon for not much more than the non-IS version. Just might take a few weeks to arrive as all the stock got snapped up earlier today!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000I2J2SG/letscook/ref=nosim
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, will look into it, still off what I have now though, i value the non IS used at around £350, and I can get new from Kerso (on the last price request) for £435, hence me asking if its worth saving up for the IS version or not?
 
I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. IS will only help for stationary subjects .. if its moving then its not much benefit really!
 
I brought the 70-200 f4 L non IS about a month ago, its an amazing lens, super super sharp, very fast and quiet AF and it produces great colour's, i carn't comment on the IS version as ive never tried it but as for the non IS version i would throughly recommend it, here are a few shots taken with mine........
work.4643162.1.flat,550x550,075,f.jpg

work.4643177.1.flat,550x550,075,f.jpg

work.4544464.1.flat,800x800,070,f.jpg


:thumbs:
 
Jchaplin said:
I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. IS will only help for stationary subjects .. if its moving then its not much benefit really!
Click to expand...

That's why I went for the non-IS. I couldn't see me getting much benefit from the IS as I will be shooting moving stuff in daylight.
 
Alot of the stuff ill be shooting will be moving yes, but there may be occasions i use it for stationary stuff (not as often, but with a lens being this much as it is, I would like to get as much use from it as possible)

And as for the sample shots posted, the colours in the last one blew me away!! I must have this lens, in IS or non IS!!
 
It depends what you really expect out of it. In daylight f/4 should normally suffice, but IS will be more versatile. IS is also a little sharper lens. The price is massively higher though. Ultimately, it is a better purchase, but you need to weigh out the balance between the 2 lenses, and any other things you need.
I am fairly happy with f4, but would love f/2.8 IS. We all do. My decision was a 2nd body (1Ds2).
 
ive already got a 2.8 non IS in the cupboard but its bulky, hence looking at the F4, the thing ive got rattling around in my head is if I buy the non IS am I going to regret it and trade up to the IS (and probably lose some money)

I want to buy the right lens first time round!
 
I bought a 70-200 F4L IS USM from Kerso last week. Having used two other Canon IS lenses since going digital a couple of years ago I would not buy a non IS lens.

Taken hanging over a balcony at the British Museum



And a 100 percent crop.



40D 1/90th sec F4.5 200mm

Perhaps not the best example but I've only used it once so far.

Worth every penny IMHO, especially at the price Kerso is charging.

HTH

David
 
ozyboyross said:
ive already got a 2.8 non IS in the cupboard but its bulky, hence looking at the F4, the thing ive got rattling around in my head is if I buy the non IS am I going to regret it and trade up to the IS (and probably lose some money)

I want to buy the right lens first time round!
Click to expand...

And do you / have you ever missed not having IS on your 2.8. :shrug:

As you've seen on here the non IS gets very very good shots
 
I haven't used the non-IS version so take my opinion with a pinch of salt, however I think I made the right decision to hold out for an IS version. The IS works fantastically and has already allowed me to capture sharp images at relatively slow shutter speeds which I wouldn't have been able to get with the normal lens.

Here's an example, shot at 1/10s at 200mm. I doubt I'd have been able to take this shot with the non IS version.

4360581968_28968fce1d.jpg
 
ive really confused myself now, originaly i just thought nah its okay get the non IS and you''ll love it, now ive got the cash sitting there waiting to buy a non IS version with, i keep thinking do I save up and get the IS version so save a further upgrade in the future!

GR lol I just dont wanna buy a lens for this much money only to have to upgrade it in the future and lose money, id rather hold out a month or two longer (most the events im planning to go to dont start till march/april time anyway) and get the IS!
 
well, the saying goes "buy cheap buy twice". I'm not saying that the f4 is cheap (far from it and bang for buck it's utterly brilliant) but for me the IS version was the only way to go. Different stokes for different folks though so if you can't see yourself needing IS then get the f4 and save £400 quid (or put it towards another lens! :))
 
the only think making me lean towards the non IS is its half the price almost, and thats a fair bit just for IS in my opinion, and as far as I can see thats the only difference between the two? could be wrong.

Plus I have a 70-300IS if I need IS, so maybe the non IS would suit me better, especially as most of the shots will be motorsport, drifting etc.
 
like I say, I haven't used the f4 non-IS so can only speculate, but common opinion on the 'net (again, pinch of salt necessary) is that the IS is even sharper than the non-IS, so that's something to factor. How about a second hand one? I bought mine off the classified for £650 only the other week and it's totally immaculate.
 
If you've got a 70-300 IS and a 70-200 f2.8 do you really need another zoom in that region? Looking at your setup, you could sell a few lenses you don't use so much perhaps and consolidate with a smaller but more useful range?
 
its a shared kit between me and my father, so joint invesment so to speak, hence a few doubles on ranges, so if we're out together we both have the range we need.

the 70-200F4 I want because i love the sharpness of the 2.8 but dont like the bulk, the F4 is alot smaller and lighter, but has very good optics, the 70-300 isnt my favourite lens (probably get shot down for this) but never really clicked with it, or liked it very much. although im sure thats personal preference as apposed to anything else.
 
Ah right, I see. Is there a chance you could try both out before you buy? An extra £500 for a (new) f4 IS is a lot for a bit of sharpness (probably undetectable for all but pixel-peepers) and IS if you're not sure you need IS. I would go for the IS personally if it's just a case of saving for a couple of more months. It sounds like you've got access to plenty of good stuff in the meantime! Best of luck with whatever decision you make.
 
yeah thats the trouble, im spoilt for choice lol which is why choosing between the two is much more difficult lol

Am thinking of holding out on both for now and just stepping back to give it a good think over!

thanks for all the advice! everyones been as helpful as ever!
 
I have jusr recently come into the photography scene in the last six months.
In that time I have bought one non is lens(canon 75 300) and the canon 28 135 is.

Ok both of them ar e not of the quality you are buying BUT this is the point I am going to make.

Hold out for the best you can afford and donot buy something because you can afford it now but do not really want it.
You say you might not use the IS but would like it seeing as spending that much would make you consider using it.
My advice would be save up and get the IS version it always has the option to switch it off, but its always there if you need it.


Spike
 
i had made my mind up on getting the non IS version,as with you mainly because of the extra cost for the IS.

if i cant find a reasonably priced second hand one then i'll be buying from kerso, although that IS version from amazon has got me thinking again
 
If most of your shots are going to motorsport ect, then i'd opt for the non IS like i did, the IS is not going to help you when your panning your subject, for stationary objects yes it will be very useful, you see this is the question you have to ask yourself, do you go for the IS version and spend nearly double the cost or do you go for the f4 and make a huge saving, still have a very capable lens and super sharp, and put what you would have spent on the IS version towards something else, At the end of the day its no loss if you buy the non IS and dont like it ( which you wont ):D, you can always sell it again as they pretty much hold their price very well...........:thumbs:

Andy :thumbs:
 
I'd say get the non-IS second hand. They tend to hold their value, so you could probably sell on at no loss if you found you wanted the IS, and by that time you'd have the money saved up....plus a whole set of fantastic images from your 70-200...even if you made a small loss you could think of it as a very cheap rent of a lens over several months...
 
Did you go for the cheap IS in the end or are you still thinking about it?!
 
Im holding out till pay day end of the month and seeing what happens (unless a bargain pops up)

but I am leaning towards the non IS as for motorsport (the primary use) I dont think id really need it.

Plus im looking into using a 1.4tc with it too.
 
ozyboyross said:
Im holding out till pay day end of the month and seeing what happens (unless a bargain pops up)

but I am leaning towards the non IS as for motorsport (the primary use) I dont think id really need it.

Plus im looking into using a 1.4tc with it too.
Click to expand...

GOOD CHOICE...................:thumbs:
 
Prop a jumper or tee shirt on something and press your camera or lens into it = instant IS, even works from resting on your knee, Amazing.
 
ozyboyross said:
Im holding out till pay day end of the month and seeing what happens (unless a bargain pops up)

but I am leaning towards the non IS as for motorsport (the primary use) I dont think id really need it.

Plus im looking into using a 1.4tc with it too.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Sensible choice. For Motorsport you wont beed IS and for daylight wildlife you should be able to get the shutterspeed up enough :)

The 7-2 f/4 is a stunning lens, one of the sharpest I have ever used, the example I had matched my 200 2.8 at identical apertures but had the versatility of being a zoom. You wont be disappointed.
 
I cant wait to be honest, itching to get hold of one and get down to a track and shoot something lol!

If my PS3 sells, soonish ill order one and a Canon 1.4TC

Take it the canon 1.4 works okay with it?
 
I had the non IS version, and have just bought the IS version. In low light which I often shoot in the IS is essential.
 
ozyboyross said:
I cant wait to be honest, itching to get hold of one and get down to a track and shoot something lol!

If my PS3 sells, soonish ill order one and a Canon 1.4TC

Take it the canon 1.4 works okay with it?
Click to expand...

There was someone after a ps3 in the wanted section on here
 
SpikeK6 said:
There was someone after a ps3 in the wanted section on here
Click to expand...



Yeah I offered it to him but think mine was over his budget as it's the newest 250gb one lol

should sell eventually everyone wants something for nothing these days though lol
 
I was having the same dilemma as you.

The IS would be nice, but 90% of what I'll shoot with the lens will be in daylight (i.e. rugby, football, hockey) so I have been leaning towards the non IS model.

However what is actually holding me back just now is that the non IS is not weather sealed whereas the IS version is.

I could always just decide not to shoot when it's raining I guess.
 
bigrob said:
I was having the same dilemma as you.

The IS would be nice, but 90% of what I'll shoot with the lens will be in daylight (i.e. rugby, football, hockey) so I have been leaning towards the non IS model.

However what is actually holding me back just now is that the non IS is not weather sealed whereas the IS version is.

I could always just decide not to shoot when it's raining I guess.
Click to expand...

I thought all L glass was weather sealed, you learn something new every day!

Im def going to get the non IS im 100% on that now, the IS is too much money to just add IS.

Just need to know if a 1.4 TC will work with it okay!

once my PS3 sells, im going to be PMing mr kerso to place an order!
 
I think you lose 1 stop with the 1.4x so that would be F5.6.

You do lose some quality though.
 
5.6 on a bright sunny daylight day wont be a problem, the extra reach would be nice to have if i ever needed it.

Not in a rush on a 1.4 TC, just thinking out loud really lol
 
Have to say as a virgin L lens owner, I picked up a f4 non IS the other day. I'm gobsmacked by the better pics it takes on my 450D compared to the kit 18-55 - and that's just handheld "snaps" of the cats! Since I picked it up second hand, I figured that I could get 90% of what I paid back should I want to go for the IS or the 2.8 at some point. I'm thinking the 2.8 non IS would be better for most of what I want to do over the 4 IS. The downside is that although this is my first L lens, I think I'll be looking to replace the 18-55 quite quickly..... I'm also thinking a 1.4x TC would be a great investment! Hmm... and I thought I'd found a really expensive hobby in astronomy........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top