Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 - IS or non-IS?

Vikingblue

Vikingblue

Suspended / Banned
Messages
115
Name
Shaun
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

Looking for some advice please... Currently have the Canon 70-200mm L f4 IS and thinking of upgrading to the 2.8, firstly, will I notice a significant difference? Secondly, is the IS version worth the extra money, how much better is it than the non-IS?

I'm shooting a friend's wedding next year so thought it was good excuse to upgrade to a 2.8 :)

All help great fully received.

Thanks
 
If you're asking about a significant difference in sharpness, the answer is no. Generally, and in my personal experience, the 70-200 f4 IS is sharper than all but the latest 70-200 2.8 IS II. Likewise for focus speed and accuracy. Obviously you get the extra stop of light enabling faster shutter speeds. The 2.8 versions are also significantly heavier than the f4 versions, not too far off twice the weight.
 
Well, due to f2.8 you'll be able to double your shutter speed of course, which will reduce your DoF.
 
I have used both over the years and only owned the non IS as for me the IS was not worth the extra bundle of cash for my useage.
I dont think in general use there is much difference in sharpness or image quality they produce.

I always think the 70-200 non IS is the sharpest lens i have ever used at even at f4 with a 1.4 converter but that might be the fact i dont have one at the moment and am lusting through some kind of rose tinted memory of the lens.

The price of the non IS is falling it seems right now so its probably a good time to buy, not sure if you will notice much difference over your f4 IS that you have now to be honest as that to is a mighty fine lens.
 
when i got my 70-20l f4 i tried out both canon and sigmas f2.8is lenses and as i only lost one stop i went with the f4 mainly because of the weight of the the other lenses. i haven't been disappointed with it and it goes round the world with me, not sure if i would carry either of the others with me
 
I've got the IS but never used the non IS so can't make any direct comparisons.

I don't find the IS particularly heavy, but it does make up for my lack of talent with some lovely images. Very sharp and I do find the IS useful for available light candids, I've managed acceptably sharp images at 1/40 at 200mm .
 
I've used both and personally i'd go for the non IS and save your money towards more L glass :)
 
Keep your f4 and hire a 2.8 for the wedding. Put the money saved towards some more glass.
 
I have the IS version of the f/2.8L The IS is good, but not great. I'm sure it proves invaluable with slow shutter speeds, but with a long focal length like that you'll likely never need it.
 
Shaun,

Originally I did not like IS, on any lens, but, as I have aged, I have found that it is now my preference. As advised previously, try them out and see which you prefer.

I should also have said that I have the Canon EF 70-200 2.8 Mk. II and it is excellent.
 
Last edited:
Eddzz!! said:
I have the IS version of the f/2.8L The IS is good, but not great. I'm sure it proves invaluable with slow shutter speeds, but with a long focal length like that you'll likely never need it.
Click to expand...

Is that the Mk1 because the 4 stop IS on the MkII is very good. In fact the first time I used it after my 300f4 which has the 2 stop IS I thought it was bloody wonderful.
 
I'm in the process of buying the 70-200mm L f4 IS (from a TP member) and have chosen it because of being lightweight and more compact and also because I'm expecting the IS to be helpful when not using it mounted on a tripod or monopod. By having IS I then have more options to choose.

I would rather bump up the ISO to maintain a DoF (Depth of focus Field) than potentially suffer the shallow DoF at f2.8. Obviously this depends on what is being photographed.

Am I right in thinking that some Canon IS lenses automatically switch off the IS when pod mounted, probably via the body? Or is it just considered as good practice?
 
Gaz J said:
Is that the Mk1 because the 4 stop IS on the MkII is very good. In fact the first time I used it after my 300f4 which has the 2 stop IS I thought it was bloody wonderful.
Click to expand...

It is indeed the Mark I
 
I used my partners 2.8 IS II this summer for a couple of events and it totally blew me away. Gorgeous image quality from it. Well worth the money.
 
Appreciate all the comments folks, plenty to think about. I do like my 70-200 f4, but as I have a 24-70mm L f2.8 which I love I do like the thought of having the f2.8 all the way to 200mm... But also am thinking about the other great lenses I could go for it stuck with the f4 or the non-IS f2.8. Hmmmm, choices choices!!
 
If you have the f/4 IS then you won't be happy with any f/2.8 other than the Mk2.

I had the f/4 IS and moved to the f/2.8 IS Mk1. I then moved back to the f/4 as the f/2.8 was just too soft wide open at the long end, negating the whole reason for having it.

The f/4 IS is razor sharp and only the f/2.8 IS Mk2 is as sharp or sharper.
 
I use the non-IS, for church and speeches I tend to use a monopod for the stability. This helps mitigate the lack of IS and helps with the weight.

One thing to bear in mind when shooting people, the IS will allow shutter speeds that'll give movement blur of people when they're quite still.
 
Phil V said:
One thing to bear in mind when shooting people, the IS will allow shutter speeds that'll give movement blur of people when they're quite still.
Click to expand...

....So if you anticipate such circumstances, one solution might be to set the shutter speed (S-mode) and see if the aperture is desirable for your DoF.

I have only just started using an IS lens - 70-200 f4L IS - And have so far shot with IS On. I should perhaps try some shots with IS Off. I'm very happy to have the IS option and its switch is easily at hand. The great thing about digital is that it costs so little to experiment.
 
Vikingblue said:
Appreciate all the comments folks, plenty to think about. I do like my 70-200 f4, but as I have a 24-70mm L f2.8 which I love I do like the thought of having the f2.8 all the way to 200mm... But also am thinking about the other great lenses I could go for it stuck with the f4 or the non-IS f2.8. Hmmmm, choices choices!!
Click to expand...

....I bought a brand new unused 70-200 f4L IS from TP's Classifieds very recently and then a Canon 1.4x Extender, also from the TP Classifieds. This option converts my 70-200 into 98-280mm < Is this correct on a crop sensor 70D?

A friend of mine has the much heavier 70-200 f2.8L IS and a Canon 2x Extender. I think that the extenders are a useful option which give flexibility. He also has the 24-70mm f2.8L and his thinking was the same as yours, Shaun. However, every photo opportunity is different aperture-wise and the 70-200 f4 is very easy to carry around even with the 1.4x fitted. The 70-200 f2.8 is a heavy lump of glass! As always, it depends what you like to shoot.
 
RedRobin said:
....So if you anticipate such circumstances, one solution might be to set the shutter speed (S-mode) and see if the aperture is desirable for your DoF.

I have only just started using an IS lens - 70-200 f4L IS - And have so far shot with IS On. I should perhaps try some shots with IS Off. I'm very happy to have the IS option and its switch is easily at hand. The great thing about digital is that it costs so little to experiment.
Click to expand...
Personally I shoot AV, because the DoF is my primary concern, I watch for the shutter speed getting low and then raise the ISO, some people would do that with auto ISO. Horses for courses.

It's really insignificant, as I've said on numerous occasions, if 3 photographers each choose AV TV or M, and we're in the same place and we need 2.8 and the light is low, we'll all end up with exactly the same shot. Looking at exposure modes is a really daft way to measure someone's photography.
 
Phil V said:
Personally I shoot AV, because the DoF is my primary concern, I watch for the shutter speed getting low and then raise the ISO, some people would do that with auto ISO. Horses for courses.

It's really insignificant, as I've said on numerous occasions, if 3 photographers each choose AV TV or M, and we're in the same place and we need 2.8 and the light is low, we'll all end up with exactly the same shot. Looking at exposure modes is a really daft way to measure someone's photography.
Click to expand...

....Yes, I'm very much a beginner with DSLR and am using P with Auto ISO. So far, relatively high ISO seems to be very acceptable on the 70D. I'm starting off letting the camera do as much for me as possible, comparing the photo data afterwards with the result when uploaded, and then experimenting to find what suits me or the picture I want.

Which section of TP would be best for me to post any photos and ask for any shooting advice, please?
 
Vertigo1 said:
If you have the f/4 IS then you won't be happy with any f/2.8 other than the Mk2.

I had the f/4 IS and moved to the f/2.8 IS Mk1. I then moved back to the f/4 as the f/2.8 was just too soft wide open at the long end, negating the whole reason for having it.

The f/4 IS is razor sharp and only the f/2.8 IS Mk2 is as sharp or sharper.
Click to expand...
That's really helpful, must admit I was thinking about going for a MkI 2.8, but sounds like that is not the way to go!

Phil V said:
I use the non-IS, for church and speeches I tend to use a monopod for the stability. This helps mitigate the lack of IS and helps with the weight.

One thing to bear in mind when shooting people, the IS will allow shutter speeds that'll give movement blur of people when they're quite still.
Click to expand...
Do you find f4 is too slow in the low light Phil? And if so, would I be able to get around that by pumping up the ISO (I have a 6D)?

RedRobin said:
....I bought a brand new unused 70-200 f4L IS from TP's Classifieds very recently and then a Canon 1.4x Extender, also from the TP Classifieds. This option converts my 70-200 into 98-280mm < Is this correct on a crop sensor 70D?

A friend of mine has the much heavier 70-200 f2.8L IS and a Canon 2x Extender. I think that the extenders are a useful option which give flexibility. He also has the 24-70mm f2.8L and his thinking was the same as yours, Shaun. However, every photo opportunity is different aperture-wise and the 70-200 f4 is very easy to carry around even with the 1.4x fitted. The 70-200 f2.8 is a heavy lump of glass! As always, it depends what you like to shoot.
Click to expand...
Thanks Robin, the f4 is really easy to carry round!

I tried a friends Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC but didn't get on with it, the colours didn't seem as rich as my f4, and it doesn't have the same reach at full zoom definitely maxing out at around 190. So I think I either stick with my f4 or then go for the 2.8 MK II.
 
Vikingblue said:
Do you find f4 is too slow in the low light Phil? And if so, would I be able to get around that by pumping up the ISO (I have a 6D)?
Click to expand...
Mines the 2.8, I always recommend eking every stop of light I can. And as the non- IS 2.8 is available at a good price nowadays, get one and a monopod.
 
Vikingblue said:
That's really helpful, must admit I was thinking about going for a MkI 2.8, but sounds like that is not the way to go!
Click to expand...

No worries.

What I'd say in summary is that, as you have the f/4 IS already, then only move to f/2.8 if you really really need the extra stop. All three models are twice the weight of the f/4 and can get tiring to use and lug around sometimes. Only the Mk2 is on a par with the f/4 IS for sharpness and it's twice the price so you're either looking at the non-IS or IS Mk1 and sacrificing some quality over your f/4 IS or else going for the Mk2 at twice the price.
 
KIPAX said:
IS? Better to have and not need.. Than to need and not have..
Click to expand...

....That's what I keep telling people who question the size of the brakes on my car!

It is true though :thumbs:
 
Phil V said:
Mines the 2.8, I always recommend eking every stop of light I can. And as the non- IS 2.8 is available at a good price nowadays, get one and a monopod.
Click to expand...

....I saved so much money buying 2 lenses, an extender, and lens tripod mount, all from TP's Classifieds, that I bought a new Manfrotto monopod MVM500A with fluid cartridge foot and Manfrotto head 804RC2.

I haven't had the opportunity to use my monopod yet but, having heard that some folks switch off IS when tripod mounted, what would you advise for on a 'fluid' monopod, Phil, please? (70-200 f4L IS sometimes with a 1.4x Extender).
 
I'm not sure how much use you'll get out of a monopod with that lens. Monopod a are most useful for heavy lenses and for long lenses without IS.

Whats your intended use for the monopod?
 
Phil V said:
I'm not sure how much use you'll get out of a monopod with that lens. Monopod a are most useful for heavy lenses and for long lenses without IS.

Whats your intended use for the monopod?
Click to expand...

....Having tried the 70-200 f4L on my monopod once so far in my garden I must admit to also wondering why I had bought it as I ended up unmounting it and photographing the Robin handheld.

The monopod may be more useful for photographing insects such as Dragonflies (which I do as much as possible) and mostly with my Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro mounted. My thinking was that a monopod would be far easier in managing to hold position than a tripod while balancing myself on the banks of waterways!

I'm also thinking that the fluid foot monopod I have would be very good for panning Dragonflies etc in flight. But I'll have to wait until Spring to find out. If I find I don't use it to any advantage it will find its way onto TP's Classifieds.
 
It
Vikingblue said:
What's the non-IS like handheld Phil? Is it too heavy to be practical handheld?
Click to expand...
It's ok in small doses, definitely fine on the run. But as I said earlier, during the service and speeches it makes life easier to rest it on a stick.
 
the first thing i did when i got my 70-200 was to remove the collar as i ahve no intention of using a monopod or anything.. it makes for a much more comfortable hand hold ....
 
Another thing to remember about IS is that it also helps a lot with framing/composition before you actually take the shot, especially at longer focal lengths.
 
KIPAX said:
the first thing i did when i got my 70-200 was to remove the collar as i ahve no intention of using a monopod or anything.. it makes for a much more comfortable hand hold ....
Click to expand...

....I am finding the exact opposite! Having the pod mount lens collar allows the 70-200 f4L to sit more comfortably such that its L-shaped 'foot' is in the palm of my hand and all my fingers have more freedom to move around the lens controls. The added weight of a collar is negligible.

Also, I personally find that the collar provides a better grip when shooting portrait proportion. This is on a 70D body. The lens still fits in its original Canon lens bag with it on too.

And IF I ever want to stick it on a pod, it's one less action to fiddle with.

Each to their own, of course :thumbs:
 
RedRobin said:
....I am finding the exact opposite! Having the pod mount lens collar allows the 70-200 f4L to sit more comfortably such that its L-shaped 'foot' is in the palm of my hand and all my fingers have more freedom to move around the lens controls. The added weight of a collar is negligible.

Also, I personally find that the collar provides a better grip when shooting portrait proportion. This is on a 70D body. The lens still fits in its original Canon lens bag with it on too.

And IF I ever want to stick it on a pod, it's one less action to fiddle with.

Each to their own, of course :thumbs:
Click to expand...
I'd have to say the difference between you and Tony is that he's got a lens with a collar!

You'll find it's not a good shape to cradle at all, unless you have exceedingly large hands. I twist mine to the top of the lens out of the way, and it still gets in the way a bit. But as I use it regularly it stays on (mostly).
 
Phil V said:
I'd have to say the difference between you and Tony is that he's got a lens with a collar!
Click to expand...

....You've lost me there! Are we both talking about the collar which is an attachable lens ring which takes a pod plate?

Phil V said:
You'll find it's not a good shape to cradle at all, unless you have exceedingly large hands. I twist mine to the top of the lens out of the way, and it still gets in the way a bit. But as I use it regularly it stays on (mostly).
Click to expand...

....No, I don't find that at all. Which is why I posted otherwise. I have long fingers but not "exceedingly large hands". Like I said before: Each To Their Own. If I do ever find it uncomfortable then I can remove it but I actually like the way it sits in my hand so far.
 
I used both an f2.8 IS and an f4 non-is. I used them for equestrian photography using shutter speeds of 500th of a second.
For outdoor stuff there wasn't much to compare, yeah you probably miss out on one in every 20 s***s with the non IS but outdoor there wasn't much between them.
Indoor however you really need the 2.8 to open up under artificial lights, especially at night, otherwise you wont be able to get the shutter speeds of 1/500th to stop the horses blurring. Im usually on the limits of a 5D mkii. Im at 2.8, ISO 64000, and get a shutter speed of 500 or 640 on AV setting.
 
I love the swear filter changing it even when it's a mistype of shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top