70-200 F4 IS / Non IS

mrbez

mrbez

Messages
1,034
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I am currently stuck with a 17-55 2.8, which is a fantastic lens, but I am looking to expand to my first telephoto.

I can pick up an F4 IS for around £750 new with a reclaim.

I am wondering does the IS make that much of a difference on this lens, or should I look at the cheaper non IS?

Also, what price do the used version go for, for both.

Thanks in advance.
 
Do you REALLY need IS? I know the current trend is for everyone seemingly wanting IS, but I used the F4 non IS for a good while without ever feeling the need for it. As I mentioned in another thread today, I've just started using the 2.8mkii IS and really don't like IS in certain situations, but if you find you do need it then I suppose it's worth it. Personally I'd rather up the ISO and shutter speed and save some cash. Granted I'm feeling a bit iffy about my first day using the 2.8mkii IS but it was in very poor lighting with a lot of panning, so time will tell. It's very different to the ease of prime use that I normally have.

Anyway, the F4 non IS which I was using before this was/is very good and I've seen others recommending the older 2.8 non IS over the F4 IS, although I've got no experience in that area so couldn't say. I only own two lenses with IS and personally I'm not keen on either to date (100L and this one I mentioned).
 
I used to have the F4 non IS and it was a belter of a lens and I was very pleased with it, didn't really miss not having IS and at approx 1/2 price of the IS version, I would look at do you need the IS ?

If you are looking at the IS version, it is a similar price to the F2.8 non IS version - just to add another complication in to the mix :rolleyes:
 
If you feel that being able to shoot at say 1/15sec hand-held in some situations is an advantage, then get the IS version. The argument against IS is that with typical telephoto/action subjects you need a faster speed anyway to freeze movement, so IS is unnecessary.

On the other hand, the IS version of the Canon 70-200/4 L is also a slightly better lens*. And you can turn the IS off any time :)

* Different optics, slightly sharper; weather-proofed; more rounded aperture blades.
 
There are several 70-200 f4s in the classifieds. Going rate seems to be about £325 or £525 for the IS. I bought a non-IS a week or so ago on fleabay- £360 with a Hoya pro1 filter and canon tripod mount.
 
Having owned and used both I am firmly of the opinion that the IS version is the sharper. This view seems to be supported by the majority of people if you do your research.

I support the comments made by HoppyUK above fully. If you can afford the IS version I would advise you to go for that.
 
valb said:
Having owned and used both I am firmly of the opinion that the IS version is the sharper. This view seems to be supported by the majority of people if you do your research.

I support the comments made by HoppyUK above fully. If you can afford the IS version I would advise you to go for that.
Click to expand...

I also agreee with this, and Hoppy.
Having owned both i cant say that the non IS version disappointed as far as IQ goes, but i did notice the lack of IS caused me to bump the ISO up more to keep me from getting camera shake.
I can shoot down to about 1/20 sec with my 70-200 and get good results (most of the time), and to me that makes it a more versatile lens, so worth paying the extra for. £750 is a very good price.
Im of the opinion that if you get the IS version now, you wont be wondering "what if" later.
Before i went full frame the 17-55 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS was my main combo, and served me well for a few years.
 
If you can afford it go for IS. It'll probably save the shot one day and be worth it.

But if your camera handles noise well, then upping the ISO to get a better shutter speed shouldn't be an issue.
 
mrbez said:
Hi All,

I am currently stuck with a 17-55 2.8, which is a fantastic lens, but I am looking to expand to my first telephoto.

I can pick up an F4 IS for around £750 new with a reclaim.

I am wondering does the IS make that much of a difference on this lens, or should I look at the cheaper non IS?

Also, what price do the used version go for, for both.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

If you shoot in low light at all IS is AWESOME. I cover a lot of stage productions. f2.8 is a waste of time for 90%+ of my shots because I need the depth of field, but being able to shoot handheld all the way down to 1/15th of a second on my f4 24-105L is perfect. For this style of shooting I'm already locked into 3200 ISO on my 5D2 and shooting at f4. I also shoot wide for extra dof when I can.

I wish my 70-200 f4 was IS, too. Bad mistake that needs to get sorted one day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top