Canon 70-200L - IS or non IS?

zerodeluxe

zerodeluxe

Suspended / Banned
Messages
262
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi

Been thinking of getting a better tele for myself, and the Canon 70-200L seems to be one of the most recommended. I was just wondering how important/useful the IS is on the faster versions?

Ideally I'll be looking for an older 2.8f used, which you can pick up for around £700-£800 for the non-IS. As that's reasonably fast, will the IS make that much difference? The IS does bump the price up somewhat, and would most likely be stopping me getting a shorter zoom which I need also (thinking Tamron 17-50)

I had thought to maybe go for the 4f as it's much cheaper, or 4f IS, but wasn't sure it would be capable enough in low light.

If anyone can throw a little advice/experience my way, that would be great!

Thank you

Ben
 
if you need IS or a waterproof lens then bite the bullet and pay the £3-400 difference for the later lens - if you don’t need these features then buy the older lens – the image quality and focusing etc difference is small. I currently use the IS version (but had the earlier version) – water proofing was important to me.
 
Regards f/4 vs f/2.8 - if you need the extra stop for low light work then the f/2.8 is the only choice but otherwise save money and weight and get the f/4.

Regards IS or not - if you mainly shoot moving subjects then IS won't help you but if you shoot static subjects it'll help far more than the extra stop of the f/2.8 over the f/4 will. The IS variants are also weather sealed and have circular aperture blades.

In terms of sharpness wide-open, f/2.8ISmk2 > f/4IS > f4 > f/2.8 > f/2.8mk1
 
My New purchase as of Yesterday was the Non IS f4, And having it today to walk about with was...well, it didnt leave my camera body, its sharp,and the colours compared to a friends Sigma 70-300 was soooo much better. I toyed with thought of getting the non is 2.8 but as vertigo has kindly pointed out, the f4 is sharper then it.

Another reason i opted for the Non is version is because i plan to use it on a tripod for landscapes, and i dislike is when using a tripod. Ive found it did an adverse effect in long exposures.(although it could have been cause i didnt have a cable release and the slight shake of the mirror could have cause the blur)
 
I've got the same dilemma as you - the 70-200 seems to be the next purchase but not quite sure which one!

Obviously I would love the mk II 2.8 IS but given the cost I'm thinking about the non IS as it's a bit more affordable and can't work out if I should get an f4 IS or a 2.8 non IS. Decisions, decisions!
 
Don't worry too much about it - even the base version is one of the best zoom lenses Canon makes. Go for IS if you find it difficult hold the camera steadily, or f/2.8 if you shoot moving targets in darker settings.
 
Pretty much as above, with he caveat that the F2.8s are a lot heavier. This may, or may not, matter to you.

Between the two f4.0s, I'd probably buy the IS version if I could afford it. Way out of reach for me so I got the non-IS, which was still a stretch, but I wanted it for a particular reason. It's also a superb lens, and possibly the best value for money of all the L series, assuming you're looking for a 70-200mm.
 
Thanks for the replies - still need to think on then. I might be tempted to sacrifice a little sharpness to get a little more low-light capability with the 2.8 - if I can get a good used price.

I may see if I can try one out, and maybe see if the f4 IS would be fast enough.
 
I would never buy a lens like this without IS. It limits you more than the aperture will. No contest really :)
 
Cool - thanks. Well, I'll start looking around for a good price. Got a second-shooter role at a wedding next weekend. Would be nice to have it for that, but might be a bit unrealistic.
 
This is why I was asking, if the f2.8 would be better/equal to the f4 IS? I wouldn't want to go for the f4 and then find it wasn't so good indoors, but then if it'll do what I need well I might be able to find a newer one more reasonably.

With regards to what I'll shoot, it'll be a bit of an all rounder - weddings (if I do more), the kids, portraits maybe (until I get dedicated primes) but would be useful to have low-light capabilities for any indoor work.
 
Hi Ben

I think from the above posts, what will your budget allow you to get, then get the best you can afford to, the F4 (non IS) is a belter and as you know is considerably cheaper than the IS or 2.8 versions.

Do you have any IS lenses at the moment ?

If yes, how often do you use the IS ??
If no, have you been in a situation where it would have been usefull ??


It's a tricky one and very much a personal choice, I'd go for the best lens I could afford, even if it meant sacrificing another lens for a short period - you say you are in need of a shorter zoom - the Tamrom 17-50 - why do you need this, is this a "I would like this lens" or "I need this lens because ...". If it is the former, you don't need the lens due to no lens at this range / job coming up etc, I would possible put the Tamron on hold and get the best 70-200 I could, then save a little longer for the Tamron ...

I'm going through a similar process with the 24-105 F4 IS and the 24-70 F2.8 - both are a similar price, 1 has IS etc etc. I've decided to get the funds together, then try to have a go with both lenses side by side (poss a long shot though I know :)) and see which I prefer the feel of (weigh etc) and which fits my needs the most.

Good luck ...
 
Thanks Andyred - I would love to get the best I can, it all depends on how much cash I can muster up and feasibly spend (seeing as we're not overly flush as a family!).

The Tamron is to replace the kit lens, which although OK, isn't the best... when I shot a friends wedding recently I reluctantly used the 18-55 mostly (*runs for cover from wedding togs!!!*) as I needed the width, and realised I really could do with a better lens in that range.

I do have the 28-135 with IS, and usually it's on when hand-holding, just for the extra stability if it's a bit dull. Always turn it off for tripod work. I'd most likely keep this as a general walkabout lens. It's just not quite wide enough usually though.
 
I've had the 28-135IS lens and was very happy with it, getting very good shots :thumbs:

Have you thought about maybe doing it the other way round, if you feel you need to upgrade your kit lens, why not do this, then see what financies left and either purchase the 70-200, or save for a while ???

I know what you mean about not being overly flush, I've been saving for approx 8 months now towards my new lens - so I've had about 8-9 months of which one should I go for :bonk: - the wife now just leaves the room when I starting talking about it :lol::lol::lol:
 
Hah.... mine too!

I've got some savings, some birthday cash and a small donation from the folks... I could afford the Tamron now, so that might make more sense. I'd like to upgrade the body too... maybe a 60d... I could get both for the price of the Tamron + 60d!

I wanted something a little longer and better also though.

I like my 28-135 too - it's perfect for walkabout.
 
a little bit of advice, buy the best you can afford at the time. a lens will last you at least 10 yeays
 
To say that IS/OS is bad when used with a tripod is plain dumb, just turn the stab off!! The IS on the F2.8 OS worth 4 stops so, if you can find one to fit your budget, there is no contest!!
I recently purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, paid £999, I couldn't afford the Canon. I love the Sigma, sharp with great IQ. There are plenty of reviews, both written and on video, floating around on the interweb and most give the Sigma a very favourable review.

Andy
 
I think the f2.8 IS will be too pricey for me, hence why I was asking if the f4 IS is comparable to the non-IS f2.8...

Used the f2.8 and the f4 IS are round a similar price. If the f4 IS is sharper as suggested and will still be cool indoors I may go that route (if I don't get the Tamron first now!).
 
Firstly disclaimer: I've got an f/4 IS for sale in the classifieds, but the following comments aren't influenced by that.

Sticking purely with Canon:

The f/4 has better glass than the f/2.8 and (possibly) the f/2.8 IS.
It's sharper at f/4 than both the above and has a better IS system than the f/2.8 IS.
It's a stop slower which influences both DoF and shutter speed.

The f/2.8 IS II wacks them all into a cocked hat.

Conclusions:
IF you can afford the f/2.8 IS II then get it. It is an utterly brilliant lens.

If you can't then consider:

Do I need f/2.8 for shutter speed; ie am I photographing moving objects where 1 stop of light will make a difference? Otherwise the IS of the f/4 will compensate for that loss.
Do I need the reduced DoF that f/2.8 gives?
What portability do I want from the lens? The f/4 is half as heavy, smaller and easier to carry around/pocket off camera.

If you don't need the f/2.8 then get the f/4 IS.
If you need f/2.8 then get the IS version if you can afford it.


Most of the decision will come down to budget to be honest.

I used the f/4 IS for most of the winter as a short lens for football and it was fine, the only time that I was up against it was under floodlights.
 
It's sounding like the f4 IS will suit my needs - I don't think i'll be doing anything very-low light, but I'd like to have the capability should I need it.

The shallow DOF will be cool, but it's not a deal breaker as I would assume you can still produce some nice bokeh at f4 on a zoom?

There's a chance I may do some gig photography later in the year, so would the f4 cope with that?
 
zerodeluxe said:
The shallow DOF will be cool, but it's not a deal breaker as I would assume you can still produce some nice bokeh at f4 on a zoom?

There's a chance I may do some gig photography later in the year, so would the f4 cope with that?
Click to expand...


a) Yup it can, you just need to use the usual focal length to subject distance consideration; ie the longer the FL and closer the subject, the narrower the DoF.


b) Yup, but it obviously depends on the level of lighting at the venue:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=272118
 
Also think about the weight of these lenses. The f2.8 version is double the weight of the f4 version. If you're the type of photographer who carries gear around for lengthy periods (at events etc), the weight difference will become very noticeable and very quickly.

The f2.8 gets you a higher shutter speed in low light (with or without IS), which is important for sports, but in most cases I'd think the f4 IS with its lighter weight would be a better general purpose lens for carrying around.
 
DemiLion said:
Firstly disclaimer: I've got an f/4 IS for sale in the classifieds, but the following comments aren't influenced by that.

Sticking purely with Canon:

The f/4 has better glass than the f/2.8 and (possibly) the f/2.8 IS.
It's sharper at f/4 than both the above and has a better IS system than the f/2.8 IS.
It's a stop slower which influences both DoF and shutter speed.

The f/2.8 IS II wacks them all into a cocked hat.

Conclusions:
IF you can afford the f/2.8 IS II then get it. It is an utterly brilliant lens.

If you can't then consider:

Do I need f/2.8 for shutter speed; ie am I photographing moving objects where 1 stop of light will make a difference? Otherwise the IS of the f/4 will compensate for that loss.
Do I need the reduced DoF that f/2.8 gives?
What portability do I want from the lens? The f/4 is half as heavy, smaller and easier to carry around/pocket off camera.

If you don't need the f/2.8 then get the f/4 IS.
If you need f/2.8 then get the IS version if you can afford it.


Most of the decision will come down to budget to be honest.

I used the f/4 IS for most of the winter as a short lens for football and it was fine, the only time that I was up against it was under floodlights.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

Wavy C said:
Also think about the weight of these lenses. The f2.8 version is double the weight of the f4 version. If you're the type of photographer who carries gear around for lengthy periods (at events etc), the weight difference will become very noticeable and very quickly.

The f2.8 gets you a higher shutter speed in low light (with or without IS), which is important for sports, but in most cases I'd think the f4 IS with its lighter weight would be a better general purpose lens for carrying around.
Click to expand...

I shoot events and the 2.8is is very heavy and it is very noticeably heavier than the f/4.0 version. I also shoot sport underfloodlight and I would not be without the 2.8is...

Its all about what you shoot...How quickly do you NEED it and then look at your funding...If it all adds up get the one that most suits your needs... If cash is a factor and time isn't too important, then wait and save some more..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top