Canon 70-200 f4 L & f4 L IS

Messages
70
Name
PAUL
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm saving up for the non is version of this lens as it will be mainly used for landscape work but I was told at the Photography Show that the IS version is optically better. Is this true? I thought it was the same lens just minus the Image Stabilisation.
 
Yep, the IS version is optically better. The non-IS version came out in 1999, the IS in 2006: they don't simply bolt an image stabiliser onto an already existing lens, the newer version will be a revised design optically. I had the IS version for a while before trading up to the 2.8 II version, and IQ-wise they're very similar. I'd save up for a bit longer if I were you.
 
Last edited:
I had the IS version and it was superb, can't imagine how the other version could be better.
Also the IS version is weather resistant, comes in handy if you are out and about a lot
 
Last edited:
The old one has 16 elements, the IS one has 20 elements = different design.
 
Brill. Thanks for the replies. Looks like I'll have to keep saving them pennies!
 
Brill. Thanks for the replies. Looks like I'll have to keep saving them pennies!
Or get a 2nd hand one from wex/mpb with a 12 month warranty?
 
Yes the IS version is better but I've had my non IS 70-200 F4 since 2006 and ive thought about upgrading to the IS version but the image quality is so good on my lens I just couldn't see any point changing to the newer IS version
 
Yes the IS version is better but I've had my non IS 70-200 F4 since 2006 and ive thought about upgrading to the IS version but the image quality is so good on my lens I just couldn't see any point changing to the newer IS version
Some of us need IS :)
 
Some of us need IS :)
I have just found that for what I do I can get a high enough shutter speed to handhold or use a monopod but agree that for the OP they may as well get the version with IS
 
I bought the IS version for the supposed better image quality, the weather sealing and the slightly lighter weight compared to the 2.8 IS version.
 
There is not a huge difference is image quality between the two. On tripod or at faster shutter speeds the results would be hard to distinguish. The IS function is quite important for some of us and mainly this is where the price difference comes from. There are other updates, but they are fairly minor.

P.S. It is critically important not to attach a crappy cheap filters on either of them (including any resin grads). Past 50-70mm mark they really start degrading the image.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top