Canon 70-200 4.0L...

God

God

Messages
723
Name
Vaughan
Edit My Images
Yes
SO, I have the chance to get this lens (non IS, original version) for £350. Worth it? Is it worth saving for the IS version, or even for the II version?

Thats about it really.

:D
 
That's about the going rate for a 2nd hand one mate....cracking lens...well worth it....the beauty of L series lenses is they depreciate VERY slowly....so i'd say buy it...and trade up from there (y)
 
Sounds like it may well be worth it... Ahhhh just what I need, more bloody lenses!! :LOL:
 
For that price i would buy it ( if i didnt already have one) They can go for anything upto£40 more than than that on Evilbay, great lens.
 
dentedshed said:
Also see this thread



Doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

My Mistake, im thinking of the 2.8.

Reading that thread just screams IS at me... maybe ill wait and save. If anyone wants to know where to pick this one up though Ill gladly tell you... :)
 
God said:
My Mistake, im thinking of the 2.8.

Reading that thread just screams IS at me... maybe ill wait and save. If anyone wants to know where to pick this one up though Ill gladly tell you... :)
Click to expand...

If it's in good condition it's worth making the spend. Once you've had a play with it there's a good chance you'll want to keep it (I invested a few weeks ago and haven't looked back!), however if once you've got it you decide that you do want IS... sell it for a profit!
 
i've never really seen the point of IS.
IMO if you're using a slow enough shutter speed to need IS to stop camera shake then aren't you going to get motion blur if you're photographing anything moving?
Think the IS versions of the 70-200s are a lot heavier too.
 
fixedimage said:
i've never really seen the point of IS.
IMO if you're using a slow enough shutter speed to need IS to stop camera shake then aren't you going to get motion blur if you're photographing anything moving?
Think the IS versions of the 70-200s are a lot heavier too.
Click to expand...

The point of IS?

- To photograph something in low light that's not moving?

- landscape shooting at high f/ numbers without a tripod? (and yes, landscape togs use the 70-200 lenses).

- Shooting wildlife from a moving vehicle, such as on safari?

- Steadier frame for panning...

- ...and even for super fast shutter speeds at the very high telephoto ranges, such as 500-800mm where the extreme focal ranges increase lens movement ten fold.

IS has many uses!! If IS is an option and you can afford the IS/OS variant its worth the extra.
 
Last edited:
fixedimage said:
i've never really seen the point of IS.
IMO if you're using a slow enough shutter speed to need IS to stop camera shake then aren't you going to get motion blur if you're photographing anything moving?
Think the IS versions of the 70-200s are a lot heavier too.
Click to expand...



I would have IS on every lens I own if it was available. The nikon 70-200 let's you hand hold at ridiculous shutter speeds. IS can free you from a tripod/monopod, allow you to use lower ISO in low light etc. once you use one you couldn't go back imo.
 
Last edited:
i have the non IS version, its a cracking lens and at £350 its agood buy.

If I had the money then i would get the IS version, imo opinion there is no reason not to have IS other than ££££££££s :D
 
Fair enough, Only experience I have of IS/OS/VR etc was a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR with which I took a picture of a sign on a wall at 200mm at a silly low shutter speed and it was pin sharp.
I don't see it being much help for what I generally shoot though and would always prefer a faster lens without to a slower lens with stabilisation.
 
Nice one, thanks for the opinions guys! I have decided to hold off and save, and as Im going to be saving I figured I might as well go all the way and get the 2.8 IS II... :D
 
God said:
Nice one, thanks for the opinions guys! I have decided to hold off and save, and as Im going to be saving I figured I might as well go all the way and get the 2.8 IS II... :D
Click to expand...

Quite a difference between £350 and £1700ish?

I would get the f/4 and go from there. Even a MkI f/2.8.
 
Arent these the favoured lens for portraits though? (well one of there many uses). I would of thought IS would be a must for indoor natural light.
 
Had the f4, loved it but had to then have the 2.8 non is.
Great lens, beats the 24-70 hands down in my opinion.
 
99hjhm said:
Quite a difference between £350 and £1700ish?

I would get the f/4 and go from there. Even a MkI f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Indeed :) BUt the way I figure it is if im going to have to save, I might as well save for the best, at least then I wont have to worry about upgrading for a very long time. Inmy warped mind Im thinking it will just save me money in the long run (y)

The only problem is convincing the other half... :bang:
 
God said:
Indeed :) BUt the way I figure it is if im going to have to save, I might as well save for the best, at least then I wont have to worry about upgrading for a very long time. Inmy warped mind Im thinking it will just save me money in the long run (y)
Click to expand...

You have to remember how much these L's hold their value.

No reason you can't get one, save again then upgrade, you wont lose much on the one you trade/sell as recent L examples are always sought after.

I was just about to get a 70-200 F4 but all this talk of IS has me thinking that IS would be a big bonus for me.

Thing about the F2.8 though, you have to consider the weight difference.

I think the F4 weighs about 760gm but the 2.8 is almost twice as heavy at 1470gm, that is too heavy for me to consider.
 
+1 on the 2.8 being too heavy.
 
God said:
Indeed :) BUt the way I figure it is if im going to have to save, I might as well save for the best, at least then I wont have to worry about upgrading for a very long time. Inmy warped mind Im thinking it will just save me money in the long run (y)

The only problem is convincing the other half... :bang:
Click to expand...

Heh. What about buying a 2nd hand IS model for about £650-£700 and saving for the 2.8 at the same time?

You really won't lose too much when selling the F4 and the 2.8 might have come down in price by then (either 2nd hand or new).
 
at the end of the day f4L are the bargain of bargain L lenses and you will have no trouble getting your £350 back when you trade up, I got one as a starting point for getting into L glass and I have since used the IS and 2.8 IS versions, do I feel I want to trade up? personally no the f4L does everything I ask of it..

but like said you will get your money back should it not be for you or you want to trade up so its a yes all the way IMO.
 
Ah sod it, like you all say it will keep its price so I will get it and see what I think. Not the end of the world if its not for me, im sure it will find a loving home either way :D
 
handheld shot
i thought i would have trouble as nearly every lens i have had has had image stabiliser
here is anothe example handheld indoors f/4 200mm iso 3200 ss 1/100s
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=I5L3PVIV
 
Impressive. Im convinced... Await shots when I get it! lol
 
The IS on the 70-200 f4 L is awesome :D.

IMG_8949_7_800high.jpg


1/60th f 5.6 200mm 400 ISO +0.5 EV (on a 40D so 35mm eq of 320mm)

100% crop

IMG_8949_7_100percent_crop.jpg


David
 
Its not the IS version :|

lol
 
I have the 70-200mm non-IS and it's fantastic, wish I could afford the extra £300 or so for the IS version, or the non-IS 2.8.

I have been toying with the idea of getting a 2.8 non-IS as I love the DOF it creates, weight isn't really a concern for me but I've heard they can be quite soft wide open, softer than the f/4 version. Can anybody who's owned both confirm this?
 
dentedshed said:
Ah, but it is the one you want :D
Click to expand...

Willid1 said:
Go on - you know it makes sense :D:D:D

David
Click to expand...

I hate both of you right now... :razz:

Mark_C said:
I have the 70-200mm non-IS and it's fantastic, wish I could afford the extra £300 or so for the IS version, or the non-IS 2.8.

I have been toying with the idea of getting a 2.8 non-IS as I love the DOF it creates, weight isn't really a concern for me but I've heard they can be quite soft wide open, softer than the f/4 version. Can anybody who's owned both confirm this?
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, I think im definitely going to pick it up, await images... well... unless I find a relatively priced IS version... :whistle:
 
God said:
SO, I have the chance to get this lens (non IS, original version) for £350. Worth it? Is it worth saving for the IS version, or even for the II version?

Thats about it really.

:D
Click to expand...

The non IS f4 is a very sharp but lightweight 70-200mm lens. I had one for about a year before I invested in a 2.8 IS model, only because I wanted to add a 1.4 IS and have (almost) 300mm at f4.

I have taken some great images with my old f4, I found it especially good for hand holding at Zoo's where I could keep it on all day and it not becoming too heavy, even with my 7D.

Good price too !

Here's one from Bristol Zoo....

4970879648_390b0dafc2_o.jpg


Steve
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top