Lens Help - Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens

A

AzureFlyer

Messages
140
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm gonna get this lens as my first L lens, I know there is an IS version.

The question is, Can you do without the IS or would it be recommended? I dont have the budget atm for the IS version, but if shooting at fast shutter speeds and from a tripod, is the IS really necessary?
 
No! But it is usefull.
 
There is more than just the IS that is different between the 2 models...

Weather sealing, quality of the switches not forgetting image quality too!
 
6950rpm said:
There is more than just the IS that is different between the 2 models...

Weather sealing, quality of the switches not forgetting image quality too!
Click to expand...

Yea, I didn't think about anything else. Just the IS vs the non IS.

Reading around, the non IS is not noticeable on the majority of occasions.
 
IS can be very useful, but whether it is essential depends on what you shoot, whether you use a tripod regularly, and which body you own. If your body offers good high-ISO performance, the lack of IS can be mitigated by the increased shutter speeds available by bumping ISO.

One thing to consider is that despite purchase prices being widely different for both the IS and non-IS versions, both hold their value very well so when it comes to selling up, the total "cost of ownership" will be very very close.

As noted above, the IS version is also slightly sharper (one of Canon's sharpest lenses), and has full weather sealing. Both are great lenses, with the non-IS version being an absolute bargain for the performance and build it offers.
 
I am in the same boat as you but can in no way afford the IS version even used. My body isn't weather sealed so I won't be taking any chances with the lens. As they do hold there value you could give the non-IS a try and see if u can live without IS.
 
To confirm what other posters have said, no you definitely don't need IS :)

It's another modern luxury that professional sports togs have managed to do without for years. It can get you one or two stops extra exposure, in terms of being able to use slow shutter speeds that would otherwise result in camera shake when hand-holding. But with a f/2.8 maximum aperture and the high ISOs that the latest DSLRs can achieve, you'd have to be shooting in near darkness to actually need this ;)

A.
 
Anorakus said:
To confirm what other posters have said, no you definitely don't need IS :)

It's another modern luxury that professional sports togs have managed to do without for years. It can get you one or two stops extra exposure, in terms of being able to use slow shutter speeds that would otherwise result in camera shake when hand-holding. But with a f/2.8 maximum aperture and the high ISOs that the latest DSLRs can achieve, you'd have to be shooting in near darkness to actually need this ;)

A.
Click to expand...
but it aint got f/2.8
 
Whoops, slip of the finger ;) I still think you won't need IS unless you're shooting under floodlights or in really dull weather.. sports togs years ago might have stuck in a ISO 1600 film and hoped for the best, but nowadays that sort of ISO is easily achievable on a DSLR.

A.
 
Ive just traded a f4 non is for a 2.8 IS MKII. I was always of the opinion that the f4 was just as good as an IS version by pushing the ISO for higher shutter speeds and also using similar logic the loss of one stop of aperture also could be compensated by increased ISO.

Since ive had the 2.8 i dont think that any more. I think the IS version is a more useful lens to have.

Having said that, my opinion is based on the type of photography that I use it for. I like to hand hold and using the f4 @200mm on a crop sensor requires realistically 1/500.

But the price difference is significant. Some good used ones out there though. Both non IS and IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top