canon L series 70-200 f4 USM versus 70-200 IS f4 USM

[JonathanNYC]

Just wanted to know, does the IS really make a difference? is it more for "speed" shots? like action players, fast moving targets etc? or can the regular lens be used for general photography such as wildlife, scenery a general all purpose lens? appreciate the feedback, this forum has been instrumental in teaching me so much stuff! :thumbup::thumbup:

 

[gwhiz]

I just got the non IS version of this lens about 4 months ago. I decided that rather than wait until I could afford the IS version, I'd start with the non IS and sell it when I could afford the remaining cost since these lenses seem to keep their value pretty well. I have been very impressed with the IQ of the lens, the overall build of it, the bokeh - the fast focusing is also very nice. It really is a great lens. However, most of the good shots have been taken outdoors. After using the kit lens with IS and a 28-135 with IS, I have to say that there have certainly been some indoor shots missed that would have been easily handled by the 70-200L IS.

If you have any doubts that you'll have enough light with this lens, you won't. You'll need good, outdoor light or just use a flash.

Overall, I love the lens and am very happy that I got what I could when I could. With that said, I can't wait to get an IS. It's really a toss-up as to whether I like the 70-200 better or my nifty fifty... both great. I assure you that you won't be disappointed with it, the lack of IS may be a great motivation to improve your strobist skills =)

 

[Buckster]

Image Stabilization is a really great tool to have when you need it. When shooting a long lens hand held and trying to be very still with it so that you don't get camera shake and thus blur, IS really makes a difference. The regular lens without IS in the same situation will often require either a tripod, monopod, faster shutter, wider aperture or higher ISO to comensate, and that's not always possible or practical to get the shot.

 

[prodigy2k7]

IS helps counter camera shake that creates visible blur in your photos. Not blur caused by action like sports. I chose the 2.8 over f4 is because I want the extra shutter speed over IS for my sports.

 

[JonathanNYC]

sigh... is it worth "double" the price though? Canon refurb non IS is $569 versus the IS for 1080.00 such tough decisions...

 

[Buckster]

sigh... is it worth "double" the price though? Canon refurb non IS is $569 versus the IS for 1080.00 such tough decisions...

Only you can answer that question, but consider this: There's a REASON the inclusion of IS makes it a lens that gets nearly twice the price from people who've done the research and even worked with both before buying.

I wouldn't even THINK about trying to shoot my IS lenses hand held without IS turned on, after seeing the difference myself.

 

[prodigy2k7]

The f4 non IS is a pretty old lens. The IS version is newer and VERY sharp.

 

[JonathanNYC]

sigh... is it worth "double" the price though? Canon refurb non IS is $569 versus the IS for 1080.00 such tough decisions...

Only you can answer that question, but consider this: There's a REASON the inclusion of IS makes it a lens that gets nearly twice the price from people who've done the research and even worked with both before buying.

I wouldn't even THINK about trying to shoot my IS lenses hand held without IS turned on, after seeing the difference myself.

Fair enough! I guess I better save my pennies! Isn't shooting with non is a more "purist" approach?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and my U S Robotics 14,400 baud modem on aol 2.5

 

[Buckster]

sigh... is it worth "double" the price though? Canon refurb non IS is $569 versus the IS for 1080.00 such tough decisions...

Only you can answer that question, but consider this: There's a REASON the inclusion of IS makes it a lens that gets nearly twice the price from people who've done the research and even worked with both before buying.

I wouldn't even THINK about trying to shoot my IS lenses hand held without IS turned on, after seeing the difference myself.

Fair enough! I guess I better save my pennies! Isn't shooting with non is a more "purist" approach?

That's just silly talk now. A photographer wants to get the job done, and will use any tools available. In the end, all that counts are the photos we make, not the tools we use to make them.

 

[JonathanNYC]

Only you can answer that question, but consider this: There's a REASON the inclusion of IS makes it a lens that gets nearly twice the price from people who've done the research and even worked with both before buying.

I wouldn't even THINK about trying to shoot my IS lenses hand held without IS turned on, after seeing the difference myself.

Fair enough! I guess I better save my pennies! Isn't shooting with non is a more "purist" approach?

That's just silly talk now. A photographer wants to get the job done, and will use any tools available. In the end, all that counts are the photos we make, not the tools we use to make them.

You win! Any Chance you can recommend a good lens either canon tamron sigma that's 70-200 or even 300 with is and not crazy expensive!? I've been looking at lenses for hours and narrowed it down to the l series but that price...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and my U S Robotics 14,400 baud modem on aol 2.5

 

[Buckster]

Fair enough! I guess I better save my pennies! Isn't shooting with non is a more "purist" approach?

That's just silly talk now. A photographer wants to get the job done, and will use any tools available. In the end, all that counts are the photos we make, not the tools we use to make them.

You win! Any Chance you can recommend a good lens either canon tamron sigma that's 70-200 or even 300 with is and not crazy expensive!? I've been looking at lenses for hours and narrowed it down to the l series but that price...

Sorry, but I haven't done the research on those particular lenses that would help you. Others here will likely be able to give you the insight you need with this though.

 

[Tony S]

You gotta pay for quality, if you go the inexpensive route you are going to have to compromise somewhere along the way and miss shots.

If it will help you feel better look at the price of a 400 2.8 IS and then the 70-200 f4 IS will seem like a real bargain. :thumbup:

 

[Overread]

What kind of subjects and situations are you hoping to use this lens for? What are you specific needs and criteria?

 

[rokvi]

As the "purist" is setting up his tripod, the "realist" has already taken the shot and having a beer while processing them.

 

[TCampbell]

Just wanted to know, does the IS really make a difference? is it more for "speed" shots? like action players, fast moving targets etc? or can the regular lens be used for general photography such as wildlife, scenery a general all purpose lens? appreciate the feedback, this forum has been instrumental in teaching me so much stuff! :thumbup::thumbup:

BTW, I noticed your wording might be a misconception of how IS works.

It's not for subject movement... it's for CAMERA movement. IS is used for hand-held photography at slower shutter speeds. What's "slower"? There's a guideline for this. I say "guideline" because the real issue is how still you are able to hold the camera when hand-holding and every person is different. But the "guideline" says that your minimum shutter speed should be 1/(focal-length)x(crop-factor). On a Canon APS-C body, the crop-factor is 1.6. On a full-frame camera the crop-factor is 1 (meaning... there is no crop). This means that at the 200mm end of the lens, you will "probably" not have motion blur in a hand-held shot as long as the shutter speed is 1/320th (that's 1 / 200 x 1.6). Again... I say "probably" because it depends on how still you are able to hold the camera -- and you should actually be doing your best to be steady at this minimum hand-held speed.

When shooting, say, sports... a shutter speed of around 1/500th or faster will generally "freeze" action. At these speeds, you wouldn't need IS on a lens because your shutter speed is safely above the minimum.

IS allows you to reduce the shutter speed by (and this depends on the lens) between 2 and 4 stops (the better IS systems can eek out about 4 stops). It's not a foolproof system. If you absolutely NEED a clean shot, then a solid tripod is always the safest bet. Remember... it does nothing at all to eliminate or reduce blur due to SUBJECT movement... only CAMERA movement. If you're shooting sports/action then you need a faster shutter speed.

Suppose you are shooting sports and you're using shutter speeds that are fast enough to freeze action -- say 1/500th. Although you don't "need" IS for camera shake at these speeds, Canon actually recommends you leave the IS turned on anyway... but not for the shot, for the focus system. Presumably you want focused shots. The camera needs to nail the focus prior to you shooting. IS actually does help the computer lock focus on a target faster than it can without IS. So, indirectly, IS is still contributing to a cleaner (more likely to be focused quickly) shot.