70-200mm F4 - how essential is IS?

Tom Tom

Tom Tom

Suspended / Banned
Messages
309
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking at picking up a Canon 70-200mm F4 - however I'm not sure whether to go for the model with IS. Can anyone give me some feedback on the two models?

I appreciate the IS will be better - but I was looking to pick up a second hand non-IS as they seem more readily available - Will I be disappointed?

It will be mainly used for a 6month trip round South America.
 
Last edited:
I don't shoot Canon, but I know a lot of Nikon shooters pray for the day Nikon finally release a 70-200 f/4, as a cheaper alternative to the 2.8 VRII. With or without VR. Though I really don't know why those people don't just buy an 80-200 2.8, it's been there for donkey's! With most dslrs capable of very good high ISO performance, it's not as big a deal as it used to be. f/4 is still fairly bright for 200mm. IS is useful if you shoot stills a lot. It depends what you're going to use it for most. If you do a lot of portraits, still life in low light ... it can be a Godsend. If it's sports, fast action, landscape, general shooting, mostly moving subjects - well, you're going to be shooting at faster than 1/250 or on a tripod mostly, which negates any need for IS.
 
Last edited:
I bought the non IS recently and have been very impressed with the image quality. I've used lower cost IS models and they don't compare.

I will say you can get away with 1/60 at 200mm with IS but def
need 1/200 at 200mm non IS.

Outside in daylight this won't be a problem but inside you may have to go to a high ISO to achieve this. Technique wise make sure you have steady hands, match shutter speed to focal length. I normally use shutter priority with this lens or manual mode and not afraid to increase ISO + shoot multiple frames in sequence to get the shot.

All depends on: budget, compare size / weight, f4 = outside / daylight even with IS, from what i've read f4 IS is judged to be marginally sharper.

Hope that helps. Obv both great just more care is needed with the non-IS to get thee best from it.
 
It also depends on the level of wobbliness or hand tremor. I wielded a scalpel for over 40 years without (much) mishap but holding a camera I'm all over the place.
I started out with the 70-200 f4 non IS and a super sharp lens it was but my keeper rate soared when I bought the IS version.
 
Depends on what your going to be shooting - if you're panning, then IS is less important and also the light levels - you say it's for approx 6 months in Africa, presume the light will be very good.

I had the non IS and it was a cracker of a lens and for the price is a belter.

It is a difficult choice, especially as the F4 IS is then around the F2.8 non IS price ....
 
Depends what kind of shooting you do , if its landscapes and you're using a tripod then don,t bother with the IS version , if on the other hand you intend to hand hold then go for It with the IS .
 
Hi

I have had both outdoors in good light you won't notice the difference go into shade and let the shutter slow down you may need IS. Must admit if weight is not the issue and you can afford the f4 IS is would be very tempted to go use f2.8 (used) the lock on focus for me was a lot faster
 
The IS model is excellent, if you can afford it you should stretch to it.

sharris86 said:
I will say you can get away with 1/60 at 200mm with IS but def
need 1/200 at 200mm non IS.
Click to expand...

If the subject is static, I was getting good 200mm results down to 1/15th with mine. The IS is rated for 4 stops and unless you have shakey hands it works that well!
 
If the subject is static, I was getting good 200mm results down to 1/15th with mine. The IS is rated for 4 stops and unless you have shakey hands it works that well![/QUOTE]

I agree you can go very slow speed when item is static
 
Tom Tom said:
I'm looking at picking up a Canon 70-200mm F4 - however I'm not sure whether to go for the model with IS. Can anyone give me some feedback on the two models?

I appreciate the IS will be better - but I was looking to pick up a second hand non-IS as they seem more readily available - Will I be disappointed?

It will be mainly used for a 6month trip round South America.
Click to expand...

Tom, i dont own these lenses but some of pals do. There is definitely an advantage of having IS, especially under low light conditions. And i beleive the IS in the L series us just awesome. I have seen handheld shots taken at 1/15 sec, and its absolutely sharp which is surely not possible with non-IS.

Secondly , the non IS version of this lens comes at a relatively low price, hence tempting. But i would the IS version is more expensive for a reason.
But having said that, the image quality would be different between the 2.

I would rather go for IS version.
 
Tom Tom said:
It will be mainly used for a 6month trip round South America.
Click to expand...

Wow.. Sounds exciting, sorry about digressing, is this trip for photography purpose? What are the places u plan to visit? Just curious, if one were to plan a trip to south america for about a month or so, what is the budget one needs to have? Been thinking of something like this for sometime now.
 
IQ is practically the same on both, but the the IS can be used at 1/20s (on static target), while non IS 1/200s (that's over 3 stops of light!). Moving target = 1/500s+ or panning
 
I'd go with the IS model. I've had both in the past - IQ is pretty much identical but once you've had IS, you don't want to give it up. It's great for when the light starts to fade, or for indoor stuff (non moving subjects!).
 
Thanks for all the input I really appreciate it!

I noted that IS is weather sealed which may be very relevant especially in very humid areas. (amazon etc)

Weight and size is something I also need to consider.

I currently want to take

Canon 60D (purchasing from Panamoz)
Canon 24-105mm F4
Canon 50mm F1.8

I'm thinking I might need some extra length for maybe wildlife etc but I also don't want to be lugging around too much equipment . I'm drawn to the 70-200mm IS because of the reviews and fantastic examples I've seen in a pic example thread. But how much I will need IS I'm unsure hence why I considering the non-IS - I also save around 400 which could be spent on a decent bag , polorising filters, spare batteries.

I did also consider taking maybe a cheaper 55-250mm - I'd be less upset if I has this taken from me, lighter, smaller, less 'look at me'

Or Ive even considered another prime - 85mm F1.8, 135 F2 for example ....

admirable said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Click to expand...

Thanks for that very helpful.

naveen.nag said:
Wow.. Sounds exciting, sorry about digressing, is this trip for photography purpose? What are the places u plan to visit? Just curious, if one were to plan a trip to south america for about a month or so, what is the budget one needs to have? Been thinking of something like this for sometime now.
Click to expand...

Its not just about photography . Photography is hobby of mine and I'm still very much learning but I really couldn't visit south America without my DSLR. It's more about the experience travelling brings.

In 2011 I spent a year traveling visiting Fiji, New Zealand, OZ, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos , Vietnam , Cambodia , Malaysia , Borneo, Phillipines etc It was hands down THE best thing i ever did - a few nice photos along the way was just a bonus. I've just caught the travelling bug so I've saved up this year again and I'm off for the second time.

I'm going to Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Equador and then flying to Costa Rica to see abit of Central America before a flight back to Thailand (just because I love it :p)

Ps - id rather not discuss costs on here but it is not cheap trust me once you factor in flights, travel insurance , living/spending. I'll be taking a backpacker route though using local transport , cheap hostels so it keeps the costs reasonable. Im also an adrenaline junkie so throwing myself out of planes alomg the way tends to get expensive lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top