Is it really worth an extra £370???

[Keenbfb]

I'm playing around with the idea of finally taking the plunge and buying my first L series lens.

After reading many reviews I'm looking at the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM if I could afford if I'd be looking at the f/2.8 but that's going to take a decent lottery win.

My question is, would I regret not spending the extra £370 (at current Jessops prices) and going for the IS version of this lens, considering that 90% of my shots are hand held?

 

[TCR4x4]

Yes, In my opinion anyhow. I bought the non IS, and about 2 weeks later sold it and bought the IS, as my handholding is useless. If you have steady hands, you will be ok without, but even at 70mm I was struggling sometimes.
Optically the lenses are pretty much equal, although I believe the IS has weather sealing, whereas the Non IS doesnt.

Have a look second hand, I sold my IS for silly money a few weeks back and lost a lot of money on it. It was only bought new in June this year originally and I bought it in November and sold it for about £100 less a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Ralphmyster]

I should think its a must in that case. I just got the 2,8is and wow, make sure the f4 is the right lens if not save up and buy the corrrect lens. Thats my advice anyway, glad I did.

 

[Jelster]

I had the f4 and now have the 2.8 IS. The one thing I really notice is the weight, the 2.8 IS is very heavy, and the f4 IS also carries a bit of weight. If you want something nice, sharp and lightweight, the f4 is perfect, but if you aren't too fussed about the weight, get the IS version. I tend to suffer from "shaky hand syndrome", but the f4 was light enough for me to get away with it on most occasions. I am a firm believer in IS though...

Steve

 

[dunganick]

There are a good few threads on this exact topic, certainly 1 that has been in the last few weeks.

The 70-200 2.8 is not heavy, in my opinion of course (i'm not exactly Mr Muscle), but i will hand hold the 70-200 on a 1d and carry it for maybe 10 hours at a time during the motorsport season and not even notice its there.

Personally i don't need IS, would rather the extra money or light. Each to their own.

 

[Keenbfb]

Thanks for the replys they have been helpful.

I or more importantly my wife wishes people wouldn't point me towards the f/2.8

My understanding is that the IS is worth around 2 stops and I'm trying to justify the extra cash for it, weight isn't really an issue.

 

[HoppyUK]

This is all a matter of opinion, but in my view it's the f/2.8 version that isn't worth the extra - all that extra weight and cost for one flippin stop It's the f/4 IS that's the pick of the bunch

It's sharper than the non-IS (more glass), is weather sealed, has rounded diaphragm blades and Canon's finest IS system.

Unless you can stretch to the 2.8 IS II of course

 

[Graham00]

Karl, you could also have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, it's a cracking lens, on review it is ''very close'' to the Canon, Nikon versions.
around 400 secondhand non OS.

 

[EOS_JD]

Thanks for the replys they have been helpful.

I or more importantly my wife wishes people wouldn't point me towards the f/2.8

My understanding is that the IS is worth around 2 stops and I'm trying to justify the extra cash for it, weight isn't really an issue.

IS on the MkI is worth 3 stops and the newer MkII is worth 4 stops!

the f4L IS is very small and ;ight compared to the f2.8L IS. If you shoot in low light at weddings and events where you make money the f2.8L IS is essential. If not the f4L IS is a cracker too. Much easier to carry around.

 

[Dave *]

My question is, would I regret not spending the extra £370 (at current prices) and going for the IS version of this lens, considering that 90% of my shots are hand held?

If you are asking the question before you even buy the lens, you can be 100% sure you will indeed regret it.