Canon 70-200 F/4 IS or not

foodpoison

foodpoison

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,253
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm saving up for a Canon 70-200 f/4, but I've had second thoughts about whether to go for the IS or not.
Reading up about it, people who use IS at their regular shutter speeds notice a huge improvement in sharpness, and you can also reduce the shutter speed by 3 stops and not have to worry too much about camera shake.

I'm just wondering what people's opinions are on whether or not its worth the extra £300...
 
I think the decision rests upon what use you are planning for the lens, I had the same agony over the f2.8 - IS or not?

I came to the conclusion that the extra expense for IS was not justified for what I wanted it for ie fast moving objects, aircraft, bikes and cars etc and I am delighted with the results. However, for portraits and candids etc the IS will be essential and worth the outlay.

The other thought is that if you've got it, you can turn it off. If you ain't you can't turn it on!

Steve...
 
If you've not got it you'll regret it.

110% worth having
 
Hi,

I have the 70-200mm f/4L non is and use a support without any problems.I have taken some Having said that I find that I am not using the lens as much as I thought I would so will be getting shot of it.
Neil
 
I'll be using it for mountain biking/skiing shots, and I don't really have £600 to spend on a lens.
I would like IS, but I think this will be one of those things that I'll have to upgrade to in several years time.

Answered my own question really. Thanks for the input though.
 
oldgit said:
If you've not got it you'll regret it.

110% worth having
Click to expand...

I would argue differently. There are only a handful of occasions so far (all indoors) where I have felt I 'needed' the IS. When I bought this lens, all I had in mind was outdoor work in the daylight, and for this the lens performs great. I have panned successfully as low as 1/60 and if the lens is being used for what the OP has stated later on, the non-IS will be perfectly fine.
 
I've just hired the 70-200 f4 IS from lensesforhire for £35 for a week, could be worth considering doing the same to see whether the extra cash is worthwhile; or even if a 70-200 is what you want.
 
FP, have the non IS version, think ot is worth having just for the IQ. It is sooooooo good, I was in the same position as you but have not regretted getting the non IS..
 
mmmmmmmm.....I'm a great fan of IS.....sorry....in iffy light conditions it wins every time.
 
spencer said:
I just recently bought a second hand 70-200 f2.8 for A tad over £500.
Its an absolute stunning lens, even without the IS.

I would have loved an IS one, but its all about the money!
Click to expand...

The price difference for the 2.8 IS and non IS is huge though, the IS version is like £300 more! I personally woulden't spend that much more just for IS.

I'm going for a 70-200 f/2.8 myself soon, when I can afford it :D
 
8utters said:
The price difference for the 2.8 IS and non IS is huge though, the IS version is like £300 more! I personally woulden't spend that much more just for IS.

I'm going for a 70-200 f/2.8 myself soon, when I can afford it :D
Click to expand...

The 2.8 is actually a lot less sharp than the f/4 IS.

Click
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L
 
Heard the 2.8 is slightly softer (and looks like it on that chart) when wide open but also heard that the quality is the same a few stops higher...

Plus on that image the f/4 has IS...
 
foodpoison said:
I would like IS, but I think this will be one of those things that I'll have to upgrade to in several years time.
Click to expand...

So it's going to be the bargain bucket slower version with no IS to help out in the low light huh.

Well there are a couple of things worth bearing in mind about that choice.

If you aren't needing to shoot with a wide open f2.8 lens and you don't need to use a 2x converter. Or you're shooting outdoors in the daytime or on a tripod, it's every bit as versatile as it's more expensive brothers and sisters.

f2.8 and IS are both lovely things to have but the good old f4 non IS is just brilliant and has bagged me more money shots than I can even remember. There are many times I've thought about "upgrading" to the 2.8 IS but given just how little extra scope it would actually give me, it's just not even close to worth it.

I can see how it is for some people but there's a very good chance it may not be for you either. :)
 
I bought the f4.0 non IS lens just after christmas and so far have been amazed with it. I take motorsport and aircraft pictures so IS for me isn't really needed, but ive taken a few static shots where it would have been handy. Its all about what you want to use it for.
Regards Neil
 
For skiing/snowboarding you won't really need the extra stop (unless it's a snowdome) as there's usually plenty of light around on the snow. I've heard that IS isn't too useful/it switches off for moving subject...
 
I have the non-IS f4L (the IS wasnt available at the time) and I absolutely love it, its my most used lens by quite a margin.

If the IS version had of been available at the time I think I would of strongly considered it although i've never found handholding a problem with the 70-200 at slow shutter speeds but I seem to have steadier hands than most people.
 
foodpoison said:
Of course! :bang:
I just thought of sharpness, not the other benefits. :bonk:
Click to expand...

Well I don't have the most steady of hands, so I tend to shoot wide open.

Its as everyone has said, you need to work out what suites you best.

But for me it was the best £500 pound I have spent.
(Apart from that holiday to Ibiza with the lads in 88 :nuts:)

Spence
 
Didn't need to read any post above..... Get the IS..... easily worth the extra if you have the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top