Canon 70-200 F4 is or not?

Hi Chris

Both are great sharp lenses; from memory, some reviews say the non-is is sharper but I do not think so. Also, both are smallish, well-built and fast focussing. You cannot go wrong with either of these great lenses.

Good luck in your selection.
 
The f4is is a really good lens and it's only one stop different to the 2.8 also a lot lighter
 
Like Trevor I really like the 70-200f2.8ISLII, it is though big, heavy and expensive compared with the smaller f4 siblings.

I would maybe give one of the f4s a go and if you find you use this FL range a lot go for the 70-200f2.8ISLII some time down the line ?
 
yes its definitely going to be the F4 version and I'm swaying to the IS version but not 100% just yet,
thanks all for your contributions.
 
What are you using it for? IS isn't generally beneficial if you are taking photos of moving subjects
 
I have both the f/4 non-IS and the f/2.8 IS II version.

Both are fantastic lenses, so much so that I have put off selling the f/4 because it's so much lighter than the f/2.8 IS version.

You will be very happy with the f/4 non-IS. I think it's probably the best value lens, for the quality, that Canon do.
 
I have had both when I had Canon.I found non IS much lighter to carry.Both are sharp lenses.Which ever you buy, you will not be disappointed.
 
The F4L non-IS is an absolute bargain for the quality you get. What will you be shooting most of the time? Can you justify the extra weight and cost of the IS version?
 
yes its definitely going to be the F4 version and I'm swaying to the IS version but not 100% just yet,
thanks all for your contributions.

Depends what you want it for / do you need IS ?

I had the non IS previously and was very happy with it and I would certainly buy another. At the time, I couldn't afford the IS version, but never felt short changed not having it...

If you can afford it, then go for the IS if you feel you need / will use the IS, otherwise save yourself a chunk of money and get the non IS - 'nearly' half the price of the IS. its a difficult and personal / financial choice - Im sure you'll be happy with either lens...
 
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the IS version is weather sealed whereas the non IS isn't. The IS version is a different optical design and it does have better sharpness, in both official MTF charts and my experience.

That said, both are excellent lenses, and very good value.

I have had both when I had Canon.I found non IS much lighter to carry.

I think the IS is only about 50 grams heavier.
 
Depends also on your camera.... Mine has more focus options for 2.8 but it is much heavier.
 
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the IS version is weather sealed whereas the non IS isn't. The IS version is a different optical design and it does have better sharpness, in both official MTF charts and my experience.

That said, both are excellent lenses, and very good value.

I think the IS is only about 50 grams heavier.

Not from personal experience, but all I read confirms this.
 
Both are great sharp lenses; from memory, some reviews say the non-is is sharper but I do not think so

Most reviews I've seen say the IS is fractionally sharper.

I used to have the IS and it was a stonking lens. Bear in mind the IS also has weather sealing and circular aperture blades (the Canon site actually says the non-IS has circular blades - not sure if this is a mistake or the non-IS has been updated).

What are you using it for? IS isn't generally beneficial if you are taking photos of moving subjects

Whilst it's obviously most useful for static subjects, it's still very useful for moving ones, either via panning mode (stabilisation in one plane only) or for framing/composition.
 
@SsSsSsSsSnake

I've had both and currently have the non-IS version.

Both are great lenses and IQ in my opinion is the same.

The IS version only came into play when hand held and on a slow shutter speed but on the non-IS a slight increase in the ISO ensures this is dealt with.
 
thankyou all,just came back and saw all the posts,very nice of you to give your advice.
well basically I would mainly use for people shots of all sorts and some nature shots,not be using for sports or particularly wildlife but if i see a rabbit i will get a shot.i like taking photos of my cats :) and i like landscapes.
and flowers.
i could afford the non IS a bit quicker if there isn't a lot of difference.
:)
thanks again
 
Hi David ,thanks for that,you know ive been thinkin,i would be using it outside only in good light otherwise wont need to bother,but what sort of shutter speed would i need to guarantee sharp shots handheld as the worst scenario say at max focal length 200mm?
 
what sort of shutter speed would i need to guarantee sharp shots handheld

I generally worked on the focal length as a minimum shutter speed for a guide to get a sharp shot (normally I would use a higher shutter speed) - e.g.. focal length 200mm, minimum shutter speed 1/200th, focal length 50mm, shutter 1/50th etc. But this is only a guide, it depends on are you still or panning, how steady are you, how warm / cold is it etc etc. I've had times where I've managed to get a very good sharp shot much lower than this and other times when i've had to up the shutter speed to get a sharp shot.

Hope this makes some sense...
 
Hi David ,thanks for that,you know ive been thinkin,i would be using it outside only in good light otherwise wont need to bother,but what sort of shutter speed would i need to guarantee sharp shots handheld as the worst scenario say at max focal length 200mm?

The rule of thumb is 1/focal-length, so at 200mm you'd want 1/200th of a second (and so on).

This is just for camera shake of course, if the subject is moving then all bets are off :)

To be honest, with the 6D, you can crank the ISO up to 3200 without much noise so even f/4 will work fairly well even in poor light.
 
I had the mk1 non-IS f2.8 and just found it too heavy to lug around all day so it was getting left at home. I now have the non-IS f4 and for only one less aperture stop it's a lot lighter and much easier to handle. As others have said, it's a bit of a bargain for L series glass. I've wondered about upgrading to the IS version but it's a lot more money.
 
The f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS II are very similar optically and the latter is basically just an f/2.8 version of the former. The downsides are cost, weight & size so basically it's only viable if you really need the extra stop. I do which is why I upgraded but, had I not, I'd still have the f/4 IS and be totally happy with it.
 
£350 difference for IS (plus slightly more elements etc). not easy :)


The slightly more elements etc are more important than the IS. It's a different lens altogether..............it's not just £350 for the IS as most folk seem to think
 
The slightly more elements etc are more important than the IS. It's a different lens altogether..............it's not just £350 for the IS as most folk seem to think
True, but the difference in image quality is marginal and some reviews (a minority) even seem to favour the non-IS lens.
 
Hi SsSsSsSsSnake, you are killing us with the anticipation ! It is just like the old Nescafe Gold Blend ads.

Why not bite the bullet and give MPB a go ? http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/

They have some IS versions in from £479, how far can you go wrong at that ?

PS I do not work for MPB and I know other retailers are available.

The one at £479 has a cracked body, and is being sold as spares or repair with no warranty! They have some others in better condition at £599.
 
True, but the difference in image quality is marginal and some reviews (a minority) even seem to favour the non-IS lens.

Have you owned the f/4 IS lens?
 
Back
Top