Canon 70-200mm f4

Zascar

I've pretty much decided that this is going to be my next lens (Currently I have the 24-105mm f4 IS) but I am just not sure which version to get. The Non IS version can be got for about €500 while the IS version is close to twice that price.

My question, how much of a difference is the IS really going to make, and am I going to regret not getting the IS if I just go for the normal one?

I'd really be interested in some real world examples of when it becomes useful/essential - and at what point does the non-IS fail where the IS keeps going?

Thanks

OREGATO

Zascar wrote: »

I've pretty much decided that this is going to be my next lens (Currently I have the 24-105mm f4 IS) but I am just not sure which version to get. The Non IS version can be got for about €500 while the IS version is close to twice that price.

My question, how much of a difference is the IS really going to make, and am I going to regret not getting the IS if I just go for the normal one?

I'd really be interested in some real world examples of when it becomes useful/essential - and at what point does the non-IS fail where the IS keeps going?

Thanks

I recently purchased the 70 - 200mm F4 L Non IS, I think IS would have made a difference, especially indoors and at around the 150 - 200 mark.

I've gotten some pretty decent shots with it and it is a really sharp lense.

You could always use a tripod for the shots where you've got a longer shutter speed.

I bought mine off adverts for €450, great lense.

Thin White Duck

Depends very much on what you're going to be using it for. I went for the IS as it gives me a few extra stops for hand-holdability which for example, enabled me to grab some great long-range candids at my sister's wedding.

I know people who shoot primarily nature that have the non-is and don't seen any other need but I find it gives me a bit more flexibility in low lighting situations without a tripod and the lens probably gets more use as a result.

Either flavour is a cracking lens and one of Canon's finest.

jpb1974

I own the non-IS version of this lens and it's a beauty. Use it for sports, landscape, portraits and some nature stuff.

The addition of the IS is very pricey. Used on a 5D Mark II I'd be happy to bump up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed and just compensate this way. Just ask yourself what do you plan on using the lens for? If your planning weddings or any sort of indoor stuff then I'd consider the F2.8 and/or the IS.

One of my faves taken with the 70-200 F4 -

b318isp

It depends on how you will use it. If you are likely to either do a lot of panning or tripod work, then the IS is of less value and you could save some money.

If you were to handhold mostly, then the IS may be of value to you.

I'd also ask what you think of the IS on your 24-105mm. For me, I don't use the IS often on mine.

Furthermore, I don't use my 70-200 all that much, it is possibly my least used lens. For low use, I couldn't justify the cost of the IS version.

b318isp

jpb1974 wrote: »

I I'd consider the F2.8 and/or the IS

Good point. I'd argue that the f2.8 is more worthwhile, but the lens size and weight goes up a lot.

Zascar

Thanks Guys. I think for right now the Non IS would be fine really, I'll just have to deal with its slightly more limited capabilites in comparison to the IS version. Don't think I could justify the extra €500 for a few stops of extra light. But it seems like a fantastic lens for the money.

I took my 24-105 out last night for the first time properly in Dun Laoghaire. It was late in the evening but the speeds were ok in general, I tried a few test shots with and without IS at 105mm and actually could not really notice the difference on the screen fully zoomed in (maybe I will on my PC). I did often wish I had more reach though, taking candid shots of people etc, having that extra length would be great.

b318isp if you never use yours do you wanna sell it to me??

Thin White Duck

Zascar wrote: »

... But it seems like a fantastic lens for the money.

It's an awesome lens for the money - you'll love it

b318isp

Zascar wrote: »

If you never use yours do you wanna sell it to me??

:eek:

aidanic

Thin White Duck wrote: »

It's an awesome lens for the money - you'll love it

(just thinking out loud here)...

I had a chance to use the 70-200 f/4 non IS recently, and am very happy with the results. As the OP mentioned it's around €500, and the f/2.8 version is around €1200.

I'm not too pushed about IS, but is 1 f-stop really worth 700 bills?

I have a 400D (!) and two EOS 30 film bodies that I use alot. I have a bunch of consumer/kit lenses, so the f/4 looks like excellent value. (Some might find their way onto eBay to pay for the L postage).

As a follow-up lens when I have some more savings, maybe the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L?

*Prepares for horrible backlash from everyone for daring to suggest 3rd party lens*


Have you considered the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, OP? Might not work out too much more expensive than the Canon f/4. I love my Sigma 70-200. I've read a lot online about people not liking it and saying that it's given them problems and such, so maybe I've just been lucky, but I think it's an amazingly underrated lens.

I also have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and I also find it fantastic (though again, I read a lot of moaning about it online). Between the two, I have not had a single reason to complain at all. Both have been absolutely great for me.



Anyway, my advice with a 200mm focal length in general is to not use a shutter speed slower than 1/400. When you start underexposing at that speed, then adjust your F/stop or ISO. I find that any slower than 1/400 and I'll get motion blur (unless I make a proper effort to stay steady, but I generally rather just play it safe and up my ISO/Aperture).

When I was in your situation, I decided I didn't need IS because I'd be mostly shooting things that move fast (sports) so I'd be using a fast shutter speed anyway, or I'd be able to use a tripod (If i needed the 70-200 at a portrait session, for example, I could easily use a tripod).

For weddings, I'd probably go with an IS version, but I don't see myself going down that road anytime soon.

Borderfox

The IS does come in handy and not just in weddings, with the f2.8IS I can easily handhold at 200mm and 1/20th. It is a huge penalty in terms of weight.

For the Sigma I have had that model and the main problem for me was the main weakness in the lens is the mount (Sigma have to make the lens in a couple of different Camera makes) This went loose on me a couple of times and had to be repaired, same thing happened on the 120-300 f2.8 I have also.