Canon 70-200mm EF f4L USM

Treesie said:
Thats the bottom line :lol:
Click to expand...

It honestly is! There's no harm in buying an IS lens and never using the IS, if you don't need the money for other kit....

The extra £300 or so it costs for an IS lens over the non IS version, could buy you a decent prime, or a 580EX II or maybe a back-up body.....weigh up what's more useful to you and spend your money in that area.....unless you're loaded then just buy two of everything!!! ;)
 
Slimbert said:
It honestly is! There's no harm in buying an IS lens and never using the IS, if you don't need the money for other kit....

The extra £300 or so it costs for an IS lens over the non IS version, could buy you a decent prime, or a 580EX II or maybe a back-up body.....weigh up what's more useful to you and spend your money in that area.....unless you're loaded then just buy two of everything!!! ;)
Click to expand...

Thats wishful thinking:thinking:
 
Treesie said:
Thats wishful thinking:thinking:
Click to expand...

Exactly, so think about if the money saved can be better spent on something else.....

IS only really helps with still subjects, and even then, only when your shutter speed isn't fast enough. As David said, if you're getting shutter speeds of 1/200 and faster, then IS will be pretty much a waste of money.

If you can only get shutter speeds of 1/10 and you're shooting a still subject then IS will help (a lot!), but only you know how often you'll be shooting in those conditions!
 
Faster shutter speeds only reduce the effects of camera shake, they do not eliminate it. Unless you have an incredibly steady hand, IS will give sharper results even when you are at or even above the rule of thumb 'safe' shutter speed. This is especially noticeable if you are trying to pull every last drop of detail out of a high res sensor.

It's easy enough to decide how useful to you IS would be. Shoot a sequence of six consecutive hand held shots at 1/200sec and 200mm, both with and then without IS. Enlarge to 100%. Chances are that you will get six pin sharp ones with IS, and one or two less sharp images without.
 
I had this debate with myself when choosing between the IS and non-IS version of the 70-200 f4. I ended up getting the IS version, because it really does help a LOT when not in bright light, especially if you don't have a camera like the 5DmkII. Even when not in low light, it still helps because you can really see the image stabalise within the viewfinder. On top of this, I've read many people saying the IS version is actually sharper than the non-IS optically......so this swayed it for me.
 
Hi guys,

sorry I'm dragging up an old thread but really considering buying this lens as I've been offered one at a stupidly low price :D I'd use this in the studio for head shots but primarily at weddings but wondered if the non IS would be up to the job in darker churches etc.

I currently use a 5D mkii and appreciate the ISO can go along way but I wanted to know if anybody uses this combination and see any results if possible

thanks :)
 
alastairb said:
for dark shooting you really need the f/2.8 regardless of iso capabilities for af, expecially with the 5d2 which struggles with af
Click to expand...

Disagree :)

It's one of those impossible questions - it depends. I chose the f/4 IS version mainly because it's half the weight of the 2.8. And it's sharper. And it's got four stops of IS.

F/2.8 is only one stop faster than f/4. Just bump the ISO, easy on a 5D2, and you're on a par exposure wise, with a little more DoF as well which is usually an advantage. With three stops of IS still to go. F/2.8 version is a fab lens no question, but it has its downsides quite apart from the price.

5D2 doesn't struggle with AF at all, it's a myth.
 
if it's so cheap instead of the 2.8 IS (which i don't think you need, and the 5d2af is fine) why not buy the /4 and some primes to go with it. 85 1.8 and 100/2.8?
 
I have the F4 non-IS and i can say its a cracking lens, razor sharp which allows for quite heavy (50% and beyond) crops, its perfect for portraits and its one of, if not the cheapest L series lens out there - well worth a buy.

I'd get the F4 and keep the change, treat myself to a prime of some sort or perhaps a 1.6 teleconverter for that little extra reach when shooting outside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top