Is the canon 70-200 f/4L a must have bit of kit

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Didn't realise how cheap you can pic these non is versions up for and constantly see them popping up in various conversations but are they a must for the kit bag?
 
All depends on what you're shooting and what the lighting is like.
 
I mostly shoot moving subjects with mine, so IS is of no concern, otherwise I use a tripod.
 
A lot sharper than the cheaper zooms that cover the range.

Not as quick as its 2.8 big brother.

A solid middle ground I'd say.

What do you already own around this focal length?
 
Brian G said:
I mostly shoot moving subjects with mine, so IS is of no concern, otherwise I use a tripod.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to point out there are other differences between the two versions, not just IS. The IS version is sharper due to a different lens array, and more weather sealed.
Probably not worth paying for IS if it's not needed though.
 
It would be for genral walk around photography and maybe for a few up coming weddings? Currently got the kit 18-55 is, 28-135 is, 17-55 and a cheap sigma 70-300
 
It's a great lens and as you say, is quite cheap to get...if you are going to use it, certainly I'd go for one

Bobby uk said:
Currently got the kit 18-55 is, 28-135 is, 17-55 and a cheap sigma 70-300
Click to expand...

From this selection of lenses, i would say yes if you can afford to get one, go for it - the difference between this and your "cheap Sigma 70-300" will be huge - the only downside is you'll loose the 200-300 range, but I would expect the difference in quality will more than make up for it, also depends on how good the Sigma is in this range...
 
Is it worth trying to pic up a IS version?
 
Wonderful lens.
 
Bobby uk said:
Is it worth trying to pic up a IS version?
Click to expand...

Potentially yes, but, do you need it ?

Bear in mind, the F4 IS version is quite a bit more money and is then falling into the 70-200 F2.8 price range, which then gives you another option / problem...
 
I have the 70-200is f4 it goes around the world with me as it is lighter than its 2.8 cousin. i tried the 2.8 and although a very nice lens far to heavy to carry all the time
 
Probably one of the best budget Canon L lenses you can buy, got my second hand back in October, taken some cracking shots with it.

I think it's a must have as a budget option. but eventually I will upgrade to the F2.8 Version, and maybe IS.

This is the 70-200 F4 non IS.

10616530765_1bc6222b0e_b.jpg
 
It is a fantastic lens but I wouldn't say it's a 'must have'. It's more of a starter lens on a slippery slope to eventually get a f2.8 IS II if you don't have the funds straight away. Was for me anyway! Watch out for your bank account!

Seriously, it's probably the cheapest and easiest way to a top quality lens.
 
Last edited:
Agree with Rob it was my first L lens fantastic lens light weight and easy to carry too
The IS is supposed to be sharper but to be honest I would be surprised if you could choose between them my non is version takes really sharp shots
 
It's a fantastic lens indeed, I've just went from a cheap Tamron 70-300 (same as the Sigma) to 70-200 f4 IS. It's a lot sharper and much easier to use, sharp photo pretty much guaranteed with help of IS.

Main purpose I got this is to compliment my 17-40 f4, then just walk forward/backward slightly to cover the gap in the middle. Then I've got 17 to 200mm covered on a full frame.

Can't say it's a must have, I debated whether to get it for a while, but it's certainly an excellent lens.
 
I have the IS version, takes a TC well too. I have a number of favourite lenses (sorry they are all L variants, or as near it e.g 85 1.8 and 100 2.8 macro) and depending on what I'm shooting they are "must haves", so it depends, as has been said above, what you are shooting. My current "must have" is either my 400 5.6 L or 70/200 + TC, this weekend it wil be my 100 macro as I'm going to Wisely buterflies.
But the 70/200 f4 IS L is a very good lens. IS is a bit like ABS on a car, it seems to impove shots even when it shouldnt i.e. fast moving objects, wel, it does for me, maybe not for everyone though.
 
Last edited:
I know that the IS version will be better but is anyone got the non IS and how do you get on with it?
 
Bobby uk said:
I know that the IS version will be better but is anyone got the non IS and how do you get on with it?
Click to expand...


Im using the non IS version its an excellent lens as I said above I dont think that you would be able to see a noticeable difference between pictures taken with either
Test charts may show a difference but not with photos of real subjects
My non is is very sharp
If you are taking pictures in low light then is is always helpful but if the subject is moving there's no difference
 
LCPete said:
Im using the non IS version its an excellent lens as I said above I dont think that you would be able to see a noticeable difference between pictures taken with either
Test charts may show a difference but not with photos of real subjects
My non is is very sharp
If you are taking pictures in low light then is is always helpful but if the subject is moving there's no difference
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I don't want to sound like a tight arse but there is such a difference between price on the IS and the non IS i just want to know if its worth it?
 
Bobbyuk said:
Thanks for that. I don't want to sound like a tight arse but there is such a difference between price on the IS and the non IS i just want to know if its worth it?
Click to expand...


No worries
For what i do the IS isnt worth the extra i would only get it if you are going to be struggling for shutter speeds in low light
 
Last edited:
Bobby uk said:
I know that the IS version will be better but is anyone got the non IS and how do you get on with it?
Click to expand...

I had the F4 non IS and it was a belter. The only reason I sold it was to upgrade to the F2.8. If funds had allowed I wouldn't have sold it and its on the list of possible future purchases again. Nice and light compared to the F2.8 version.

I occasionally missed not having IS on it, but at the time I bought it, I couldn't afford the extra and wasn't disappointed at all with the non IS version...
 
Used my 70-200 F4 non IS for the first time on my new 7D (shots in my recent motorsport post). The quality of the lens is amazing for the money, it's light enough to use allday long and sharp at F4. Won't be selling it anytime soon :)
 
I had the f4 non IS for around 9 months as was very impressed with it.
Like most have said, for the money it's worth every penny.
I only sold it to get the f2.8 IS II as i do a fair bit of theatre shoots so needed the 2.8 & IS for the low light in venues.
 
I have the non-IS version, and love mine. Personally I thought about going for the 2.8 but decided not to as it's just bigger and heavier and I didn't want that. It was my first real quality lens and I doubt I'll ever sell mine. I've not checked used prices, but assume that you could buy one, and assuming it does not break in your possession sell it on again at little or no loss. Whilst not the traditional focal length, I used it as a walkaround when I went to Prague and also for landscapes.
 
Bobby uk said:
It would be for genral walk around photography and maybe for a few up coming weddings? Currently got the kit 18-55 is, 28-135 is, 17-55 and a cheap sigma 70-300
Click to expand...
As above it's a great lens. But for weddings, 2.8 is the slowest lens you want.
 
for me they are the bargain upgrade and I have good memories..

some years back I had managed to scrape some monies together to move up from a 350d to a 2nd hand 40d, I was using a Sigma 70-300 APO at the time and lens was the next on my list, so out went the APO and I managed to find a 70-200 f4 locally within budget, went to get it and on the way back I stopped at a local park to have a go..

my 2nd shot was this, by no means perfection but to me at the time it was the best thing ever.. sure there are better options but I would find it hard to say better for the money.

5404025491_36a152c1af_z.jpg




this is a few years later and with a 30d w/ 70-200 f4

7184320759_ed102cf5e9_c.jpg


truly bargain lenses
 
Last edited:
strumstrum said:
for me they are the bargain upgrade and I have good memories..

some years back I had managed to scrape some monies together to move up from a 350d to a 2nd hand 40d, I was using a Sigma 70-300 APO at the time and lens was the next on my list, so out went the APO and I managed to find a 70-200 f4 locally within budget, went to get it and on the way back I stopped at a local park to have a go..
Click to expand...

I too had that Sigma, that was replaced with my first 70-200 f/4 IS. Amazing leap in quality IIR. Funny enough i was also using a 350D back then.
 
Im currently using a canon 50d and had a chat with yhe guy in the local camera shop and he seems to think that it will struggle without the IS. But obviously wasn't sure if he just wanted more money out of me?
 
Have also noticed that you can pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS for the same as the 70-200 f/4 IS :thinking:
 
The 70-200mm f4L IS was my first lens - Bought from TP Classifieds before I had even bought my 70D body. It was brand new and unused, being an insurance replacement which became unwanted by the seller.

It works very well with the Canon 1.4x III which then offers you the option of 98-280mm at f5.6. I'm used to working at f5.6 on my Canon 400mm f5.6L and so it's not a problem. The f2.8L version is substantially heavier but does work well with Canon's 2x Extender.

Whether it is a 'must-have' or not depends entirely on what kind of photography you like to do. For me it's my standard lens.
 
I took a brand new Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens with me to Madagascar, which produced some lovely images (on my 40d). Decided to invest in some 'nicer' lenses when I got back and found raving reviews everywhere in regards to the Canon 70-200 f4L. Picked one up here very cheap and in good enough condition here and frankly the lens blew me out of the water. The AF speed, IQ and ease of use if terrific. For some reason they are selling for peanuts 2nd hand, i.e. under £350 which IMO is an utter bargain. Yes f4 isn't the fastest aperture, but the DOF when taking shots near to the 200mm end is more then enough (on most occasions).

For example this was one of the first shots taken with the lens mounted on a 30d. It's not perfect (soft), I literally popped outside in the snow in shorts and stuck the camera on f4 and snapped a single shot of one of our sheep dogs
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...1357457498283.484592.515498282&type=3&theater

I couldn't recommend the lens any more and at under £400 S/H it's a steal. I own the IS and non IS versions and can't see a difference between the two, I just like the idea of having IS
 
Similar to many people, I started with a 55-250mm and then upgraded to a 70-200 f4 IS.

However, as I take photos of dogs for enjoyment and clients, I found that 1/1000th sec at f4 resulted in too much noise.

I recently upgraded (again) to a 70-200 f2.8 IS mkII and haven't used the f4 since. Both lenses produce stunning images with great bokeh, but the f2.8 gives me much more scope when using faster shutter speeds.

Of course, I still have the f4, and I am reluctant to sell it. It weighs so much less than the f2.8 and on bright days, is just as useful to me.
 
i have the 70-200 non is and I find it is really good for moving subjects like Brian said, when I am shooting weddings it is good, however depends on light and bodies owned, I use on a 6d so light isnt an issue for me. The picture quality is good, it isnt my favorite lens but it is the only one i have in that range. I have an 85 prime that I love but its a prime and cant compare, the quality isnt as good as the 24-70 2.8 but then i wouldnt expect it to be, that is a non is as well but the quality is better.
 
I would love to have the 2.8 version and i have used it at both f1 and motogp but i find it way too heavy to hold all day, the f4 is comparably lightweight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top