Canon 70-200mm f4 L Lens IS or Non-IS?

[fsnfms]

Hello guys, I have just graduated from the high school and leaning towards the world of photography. I am currently looking at the 70-200mm f4 L lens for my very first L lens and for telephoto/zoomed shootings. I currently use Canon 60D and I want to hear it from you guys if the IS version worth extra $500? I like to shoot outdoor, especially the wild life - particularly the birds. I also do some street photos when I'm traveling.

 

[Lumens]

Considering you mention you are a recent High School graduate this is a tough one to answer. The extra $500 is a lot of money but on that lens the IS may be worth it unless you have no problem using a tripod/mono-pod quite often.

Also shooting birds the 200 might leave you a bit short on reach as well. I can't help but lean towards mentioning something else. If it is birds you are interested in you might want to look for a used 100-400 MKI. The 100-400 is selling fairly reasonable now in the used market now that the MKII is out. It would give you much better reach for birding at a reasonable price.

 

[Rgollar]

The 70-200 is a great lens but for birds and wildlife your always going to be wanting more reach. The 100-400 MKI is definitely the better choice. IF you look for it used you can find it for a good price especially since the MKII version is out now.

 

[Overread]

Bird photography starts at 400mm

That's not to say you can't use shorter, but that the shorter the harder it will become. The 70-200mm lens is a great focal length range in a single package; honestly they are very diverse and great to have in the bag and will do a lot. General nature photography; street, action, sports - the 70-200mm is a great option for those and one I'd put in the bag. Personally I'd swing for f2.8 versions over IS if possible - the extra stop of light the aperture gives helps and whilst IS is good to have its not essential (A good tripod/monopod/fence to lean on and using proper shutter speeds will work).

If going shooting birds though it wouldn't be my choice to go in the bag*. You might look at a second hand 400mm f5.6 L or the mentioned 100-400mm second hand. Sigma also makes some good options. Long focal length lenses get costly fast so it can be a more expensive investment; but if birds are you think then that 400mm will be very important for you.


*unless its the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII and then its going in the back with a 2*Teleconverter

 

[DarkShadow]

The 70-200 IS version also has weather and dust sealing and a newer optical design so your not just paying for IS.Something to consider before you purchase one or the other. Optical quality is superb on the IS Version but its not enough reach for birding unless your shooting larger birds such as gulls or birds at the zoo. Just a suggestion but you can get the non IS version and what you save can be put towards a sigma 150-500 and would be just about the price of one 70-200 IS give or take.

 

[JohnTorcasio]

The Canon EF 70-200mm IS version is a much better lens..Forget the non IS

 

[fsnfms]

Thank you to you all who gave me such a amazing recommendations and your thoughts. After long thinking and researching, I have decided to go with the 70-200mm non-is due to my budget and will grab 400mm prime for the birding. I just think I do not have a time for serious birding anyways within this year anyways.