Canon 70-200 f4 L - IS?

johnt

johnt

Messages
144
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I know this debate has been going on for a while, IS or no IS, but with specific reference to this lens, is IS worth the additional money.

I can just scrape together enough for the non IS having sold my Bronica to raise the cash. The IS version is considerably more money, is it that much better?

Subjects will include all aspects of photography including 'general', sports and wildlife.

Also, just out of interest do people still follow the 1/focal length rule for shutter speed with a cropped sensor DSLR?

Thanks

John :bang:
 
Generally IS is worth spending a bit extra on, you gain those extra stops so with the f/4 version of the 70-200 IS is a good idea. On the 2.8 it's not as neccessary in my opinion, i'm looking to get the non IS version of the 2.8 soon.

All depends on what your shooting though, if the subject is moving IS isn't as important, but low light still objects (like candid shots of people) the IS is going to be worth the extra dosh.
 
Hi Johnt,

I just got the IS version of this lens yesterday. One thing I noticed other than the fast and silent canon AF is that fact when shooting with 100-200 in lower light the IS makes the image so sharp even when I grab the camera a shoot without thought. I have noticed this compared to my EX Sigma 70-300 with out any type of IS.

All I can offer you atm :)

SB
 
I went for the IS version as it was a close to the 2.8 I could afford, my thinking was that the IS @ F4 would give me some nice low speed hand helds (and it does) - I havent tried the none IS but I can safely say that I can get some increadable low speed shots which I can only really put down to the IS, with my Sigma 70-300 (no IS) I could manage a shutter speed faster than the focal length, now I can shoot 200mm at about 1/60 no problems!

The none IS will still be a stunning lens but you might just end up kicking yourself you didnt just save up the extra chunk for the IS (in my opinion)
 
I'm thinking of upgrading my EF 75-300 to the 70-200F4. I did prefer the 70-300IS for the reach but the rotating barrel and good and bad reports have made the decision hard. I feel that moving up to the IS version could be a better choice. All i really require is the sharpest image possible, any make.
 
dcash29 said:
I'm thinking of upgrading my EF 75-300 to the 70-200F4. I did prefer the 70-300IS for the reach but the rotating barrel and good and bad reports have made the decision hard. I feel that moving up to the IS version could be a better choice. All i really require is the sharpest image possible, any make.
Click to expand...


The difference between the 70-300IS and the 70-200f4 IS is huge - I sold one for the other, and I had the f2.8IS as well for a while.
The f4 IS is an amazing lens in that it is so easy to use, and so easy to carry.
I have shot (yes, I know this sounds naff, but it is true) at 1/15th of a second and got sharp results at 200mm - the non-IS can't get anything close to that.
 
I have the non-IS and I have no problem shooting 1/15th at 200mm.
 
Clearly, I am older and shake more than you, but most of us struggle to hand-hold a lens at less than its focal length, so 1/200th would be the norm for me and most of us humans..

You don't mention if your shots are sharp though..
 
Why would I have posted that if the shots where blurry, I've no doubt if I had an IS lens I could hold even lower speed shots but that doesnt mean that the likes of 1/15th is impossible at 200mm without IS.

Its all in the breathing and how light a touch you can give the shutter button.
 
Well thanks everyone, overall I think you have confirmed my initial thoughts, save up!

Anyone got a secondhand one for sale?!
 
Thanks Steve, John make that two secondhand ones and a buyer for my other 3 lenses
 
I`ve got the IS version of this lens, it`s bloody great. I used it for the Big cat shoot, got some really sharp pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top