Having taken ownership of my 40D...

dmcaloney

dmcaloney

Suspended / Banned
Messages
289
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
and zoom lenses being a requirement for my shots...

I have a 75-300 canon, which from what I gather is almost at the bottom of the gene pool lens wise... (not used it on my new camera yet)

so looking for a decent lens.

Now the one that is interesting me is the Canon 70-200f4L...

however...

there is a big price difference from the IS and the non IS versions, and I need to question what I am getting for the difference.

I know! Obvious! :) But as I almost exclusively shoot handheld... I am looking for advice from owners of these lenses on the difference... and whether it necessitates the almost twice the price?

For the record I am looking at shooting, sports... from a distance.

Thanks in advance.
 
I own the 70-200 F4L non IS lens and think it is fantastic. If your using it for sports, you will i'm guessing be shooting moving targets most of the time and you will probably be tracking that moving subject. If this is the case, I believe the IS would be redundant in most situations, ergo not making it worth the extra in cost.

Here is a link to a handful of shots is took with a worse body than yours (500D) and the 70-200 F4L to help you decide.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=234738

hope this helps,

Rob
 
Brilliant. Thanks for the advice chaps. Thought I had to blow the budget and then some to get what I wanted...

Thanks for the examples too Robin. Awesome shots

But my thoughts were that.. shooting from distance i.e. getting towards the 200... every natural hand quiver would be multiplied... but especially given Robin's shots,,, this would seem to be a myth?

So what does the IS actually give?
 
dmcaloney said:
Brilliant. Thanks for the advice chaps. Thought I had to blow the budget and then some to get what I wanted...

Thanks for the examples too Robin. Awesome shots

But my thoughts were that.. shooting from distance i.e. getting towards the 200... every natural hand quiver would be multiplied... but especially given Robin's shots,,, this would seem to be a myth?

So what does the IS actually give?
Click to expand...

2 - 4 stops more shutter speed.

Basically you can use slower shutter speeds hand held.

for example if you can hand hold 200mm at 1/250 on the non IS and avoid camera shake then with the IS version you could use slower shutter speeds (like 1/60 or 1/30) at the same focal length and still avoid camera shake & get sharp images.
 
for sports you want a good high shutter speed to eradicate subject movement blur, so IS isn't required as you'll generally be at a minimum 1/400th or more.

I had the non IS and loved it, super fast focussing, light and sharp wide open!
 
I have the 70 - 200 F4 IS and use it for sport. I find the IS a real bonus for panning. The lens has a 2 stage system that allows you to correct the movement in one direction. This helps to have a sharp subject but blurred background when panning.
 
Having used a 70-300IS and now a 70-200L IS I would not buy a non IS tele lens.

The 4 stop IS on the 70-200L is awesome, so much so that I often forget to keep an eye on the shutter speed.

Take this image, a 100% crop at 200mm on my Canon 40D (so eq 320mm) at 1/60th sec hand held, no monopod or tripod. Luckily the horse didn't move.



Whole image

HTH

David
 
I have a simple rule. Buy the best you can comfortably afford.

Some would say that if you're not going to use the IS then buy the non IS version.

I opted for the f2.8 IS (MK 1) version at the time and despite it being a pig of a heavy lens the IQ (even at 2.8) makes up for that ten fold. IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top