To Spend Money or To Save More? To IS or Not To IS?

[prodigy2k7]

Yes I have shot without IS @ 300mm. I had a fast shutter speed, and I was outdoors. But what you were saying is that anything over 100mm will not be worth keeping. That's simply not true.

If he wants it for low light in the evening, he'll probably be shooting on a tripod, I would assume. The ISO can also be adjusted to compensate.

You're not going to want to use a constant f/4 zoom indoors or in a low light situation regardless of how good your IS is. Or at least I wouldn't. Unless I had a flash and a lot of control over the lighting.

^ agreed.
I have also shot at 300mm with no IS (my 75-300 doesnt have IS) and I dont get camera shake visible in my pictures because the shutter speed is fast enough.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Its kinda like buying a car with no airconditioning. Sure it will get you from point A to point B, without any danger, but do it for one summer in Arizona and see how much you WISH you would have gotten the AC. lol. IS is convenient and can make your life a lot easier. You don't HAVE to have it, but if you look around for a used deal, it might not be so painful to spring for it. Its definately better to have it to not have it. The monetary factor depends on you and your budget.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Its kinda like buying a car with no airconditioning. Sure it will get you from point A to point B, without any danger, but do it for one summer in Arizona and see how much you WISH you would have gotten the AC. lol. IS is convenient and can make your life a lot easier. You don't HAVE to have it, but if you look around for a used deal, it might not be so painful to spring for it. Its definately better to have it to not have it. The monetary factor depends on you and your budget.

I wouldn't really compare it to air conditioning, maybe runflat tires?

 

[Taylor510ce]

Its kinda like buying a car with no airconditioning. Sure it will get you from point A to point B, without any danger, but do it for one summer in Arizona and see how much you WISH you would have gotten the AC. lol. IS is convenient and can make your life a lot easier. You don't HAVE to have it, but if you look around for a used deal, it might not be so painful to spring for it. Its definately better to have it to not have it. The monetary factor depends on you and your budget.

I wouldn't really compare it to air conditioning, maybe runflat tires?

:lmao: Actually, AC is a very good comparison. After lugging that tripod around everytime you go out to shoot just incase. LOL. Of course you could get a nice carbon fiber tripod, but then again, you could just get IS.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Its kinda like buying a car with no airconditioning. Sure it will get you from point A to point B, without any danger, but do it for one summer in Arizona and see how much you WISH you would have gotten the AC. lol. IS is convenient and can make your life a lot easier. You don't HAVE to have it, but if you look around for a used deal, it might not be so painful to spring for it. Its definately better to have it to not have it. The monetary factor depends on you and your budget.

I wouldn't really compare it to air conditioning, maybe runflat tires?

:lmao: Actually, AC is a very good comparison. After lugging that tripod around everytime you go out to shoot just incase. LOL. Of course you could get a nice carbon fiber tripod, but then again, you could just get IS.

My monopod isnt heavy and allows me to use faster shutter speeds (F/2.8) I am speaking purely from a sports view. When would I ever need IS for sports? Anytime my shutter would get too slow that I would need to use IS, I would be getting blurry action shots aswell...

 

[DerekSalem]

If u dont go is ull hate all ur handheld pix over 100mm so if u want to spend money and throw away go for it

Not true. If you know the relationship between shutter speed and focal length your photos will be fine. It's not like telephoto lenses don't work without IS. As people shoot 300mm+ all the time with no issues.

Although I'd say go for the IS version anyway, the optical quality of the non-IS f/4L is *not* that great. It's definitely good, but when paired next to the IS version they are *obviously* 2 different lenses.

The f/4L IS is one of the best 70-200s available (only bested by the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mark II). The IQ is phenomenal on that lens and you won't be disappointed.

Either way, get the IS. It can help in a lot of situations where you don't realize it now. I try to get IS on every lens I can. I'm confident in my hand-holding ability, but there are plenty of times I was glad I could that that 1/3 of a second shot standing in a crowded room with nothing to lean on. Can't do that on a non-IS.

 

[prodigy2k7]

If u dont go is ull hate all ur handheld pix over 100mm so if u want to spend money and throw away go for it

Not true. If you know the relationship between shutter speed and focal length your photos will be fine. It's not like telephoto lenses don't work without IS. As people shoot 300mm+ all the time with no issues.

Although I'd say go for the IS version anyway, the optical quality of the non-IS f/4L is *not* that great. It's definitely good, but when paired next to the IS version they are *obviously* 2 different lenses.

Optical quality isn't everything. Its not THAT great? sure it is, just the IS is better. You cant really beat it for $650 (F/4 non-IS)

The f/4L IS is one of the best 70-200s available (only bested by the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mark II). The IQ is phenomenal on that lens and you won't be disappointed.

Either way, get the IS. It can help in a lot of situations where you don't realize it now. I try to get IS on every lens I can. I'm confident in my hand-holding ability, but there are plenty of times I was glad I could that that 1/3 of a second shot standing in a crowded room with nothing to lean on. Can't do that on a non-IS.

As I said, it depends if he shoots low-shutter speeds and wants to freeze motion or not. IS doesnt freeze motion and if your subject is moving while shooting with IS and slow shutter speeds, it doesnt help.

The way I see it, IS can only help in certain situations (low shutter speeds where you cant hand-hold)

But a full stop of more light, you can use anytime you want!

Sure, IS helps to hand-hold in low-light, but why not get a flash then if you are shooting in-doors while walking around, it will allow you to shoot faster shutter speeds.

I just dont see it for the average joe, I see IS helping in certain circumstances, but not worth spending extra money if you are rarely going to use it just to get the shot you cant with flash, tripod, monopod, or larger aperture.

 

[Taylor510ce]

I wouldn't really compare it to air conditioning, maybe runflat tires?

:lmao: Actually, AC is a very good comparison. After lugging that tripod around everytime you go out to shoot just incase. LOL. Of course you could get a nice carbon fiber tripod, but then again, you could just get IS.

My monopod isnt heavy and allows me to use faster shutter speeds (F/2.8) I am speaking purely from a sports view. When would I ever need IS for sports? Anytime my shutter would get too slow that I would need to use IS, I would be getting blurry action shots aswell...

Thats where two stage IS comes in handy, which I believe the 70-200 f4 IS has.

 

[gsgary]

:lmao: Actually, AC is a very good comparison. After lugging that tripod around everytime you go out to shoot just incase. LOL. Of course you could get a nice carbon fiber tripod, but then again, you could just get IS.

My monopod isnt heavy and allows me to use faster shutter speeds (F/2.8) I am speaking purely from a sports view. When would I ever need IS for sports? Anytime my shutter would get too slow that I would need to use IS, I would be getting blurry action shots aswell...

Thats where two stage IS comes in handy, which I believe the 70-200 f4 IS has.

Post some of your shots taken with your IS model and i'll post some of mine with no IS

 

[Taylor510ce]

My monopod isnt heavy and allows me to use faster shutter speeds (F/2.8) I am speaking purely from a sports view. When would I ever need IS for sports? Anytime my shutter would get too slow that I would need to use IS, I would be getting blurry action shots aswell...

Thats where two stage IS comes in handy, which I believe the 70-200 f4 IS has.

Post some of your shots taken with your IS model and i'll post some of mine with no IS

Must everything be a pissing match? I am sure you have great shots with no IS. Thats not the argument here. IS is a covenience that can make life easier. Thats why its becoming more and more prevalent on lenses including third party lense and kit lenses. Its not a gimmick. If you dont like it, thats ok.

 

[Ryan L]

I have owned the 70-200 f4 the 2.8 and recently the 2.8 IS mkI. i am finally happy I hated the non-IS F4 with a passion. Loving the 2.8 IS just picked up a mint version for 1200 bucks off craigs list a few weeks ago.

 

[Taylor510ce]

I have owned the 70-200 f4 the 2.8 and recently the 2.8 IS mkI. i am finally happy I hated the non-IS F4 with a passion. Loving the 2.8 IS just picked up a mint version for 1200 bucks off craigs list a few weeks ago.

I think this post would actually be the most useful to the OP so far.

 

[MohaimenK]

Taylor....yes indeed threads become a pissing match so I step aside

With that said, yes sure there are lots of people that did/does it w/out IS but why spend the money if you can spend a little extra to get the IS version? The IS was made for a reason and it does help ALOT and allow you to work with very low shutter speed. :thumbup:

 

[Gaerek]

With that said, yes sure there are lots of people that did/does it w/out IS but why spend the money if you can spend a little extra to get the IS version? The IS was made for a reason and it does help ALOT and allow you to work with very low shutter speed. :thumbup:

I wouldn't call a nearly $600 difference (or paying nearly twice as much) paying "a little extra." I don't think (personally) IS should be the make it or break it on the lens. But, as has been repeatedly stated, there are other reasons the IS version is superior, and those reasons would be worth the extra cash, not the IS.

I would also argue that IS doesn't help a lot. It helps in certain circumstances. If I'm outside, there's no real reason to need it in most circumstances. If you're on a tripod (and I don't think that lens is "tripod aware") and you forget to turn it off, you will have a worse picture. If you're inside, especially photographing people, you'll want a relatively fast shutter speed anyway, and if that's your plan, the f/2.8 version would be a better bet anyway, to help prevent motion blurred people.

Don't get me wrong, IS has it's uses, and when you need it, it's nice to have, but I think it's use is a bit overrated. For me personally, less than 5% of the type of shots I take can be really helped with IS. I rarely take pictures of static objects, in low light, which is where IS is really helpful. I'm either in an area with enough light, on a tripod, or photographing people (or my 17 month old, who NEVER stops moving). YRMV

 

[MohaimenK]

cool man you win :thumbup: