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

[AlwaysANewbie]

I need some help, I have some money burning a hole in my pocket but I'm wondering if I should let it burn a little more and have more appear.

I have been looking at an Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L but I'm having a challenge with determining if I should get the IS version or not. I have been seeing a lot of people selling the non-IS version and turning around and buying the IS version because they don't like the results. As well, the IS version being twice the price isn't helping me decide (I'm trying not to let this be a deciding factor but it is).

I plan on using the lens for mainly wildlife and landscape/cityscape shots when I have wanted that extra zoom to get more detail due to the distance. I see myself using a tri or mono for most of the pictures but being able to take hand held shots would be nice as well.

I would like to hear your opinions on my to IS or not to IS debate. If you have had both of the lenses it would be great to get your reviews.

If you have other lens suggestions for the shots I want to take please suggest them.

 

[MohaimenK]

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

 

[Derrel]

The newer 70-200 f/4 IS model is a better lens, optically, than the much older f/4 non-IS.
The new f/4 IS model is optically excellent, although the cost is significantly higher than that of the older model.

 

[o hey tyler]

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.

 

[MohaimenK]

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.

Have you shot w/out IS at 300mm handheld? You should do it and let me know. And why is he going to limit himself to high shutter speed? What if he needs it for low light in the evening when he'll probably have to use slower speed being it a f4?

 

[o hey tyler]

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.

 

[Neil S.]

As Derrel said usually the IS versions of L lenses have other advantages as well since they are newer. There are probably exceptions to this though.

Sometimes they use fluorite elements in the newest telephotos which are also usually IS versions. Fluorite is Canons fancy new glass element that works wonders to reduce CA.

I have yet to see any CA on my 70-200 mk II, which uses this type of element. The optical performance of the lens was beyond my wildest dreams for what a zoom could be.

IS for obvious reasons is better to have than not overall. It does put the lens at a disadvantage optically compared to non-IS lenses, but in the case of my mk II I cant even tell the difference.

Hope this helps.

- Neil

 

[Taylor510ce]

I would save more and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mki. I got mine pristine for $1400 which I believe is just barely more than the f/4 IS new.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Whoops....forgot the main question. Get IS you wont regret it. You might regret not getting it though.

 

[HikinMike]

I have the 70-200 mm f/4L non-IS version. I shoot landscape and nature and I never needed IS. It's sharp as a tack too. I'd like to buy the 2.8 version (non-IS) only because I shoot gymnastics for my daughter, but I still don't feel I need IS.

 

[gsgary]

As Derrel said usually the IS versions of L lenses have other advantages as well since they are newer. There are probably exceptions to this though.

Sometimes they use fluorite elements in the newest telephotos which are also usually IS versions. Fluorite is Canons fancy new glass element that works wonders to reduce CA.

I have yet to see any CA on my 70-200 mk II, which uses this type of element. The optical performance of the lens was beyond my wildest dreams for what a zoom could be.

IS for obvious reasons is better to have than not overall. It does put the lens at a disadvantage optically compared to non-IS lenses, but in the case of my mk II I cant even tell the difference.

Hope this helps.

- Neil

The 70-200F4 is sharper than the 70-200F2.8is mk1

 

[gsgary]

The 70-200F4 is an awful lens

 

[Neil S.]

The 70-200F4 is sharper than the 70-200F2.8is mk1

I didnt realize that I said anything to the contrary lol...

 

[Gaerek]

IS is nice, but it's not necessary. I would never let IS be the deciding factor with buying a lens. If there were other reasons to get the IS lens over the non-IS lens, I would consider it, but all things being equal, I'd rather save the money.

To those that think you need IS for telephoto shots:

How did photographers take sharp photos at long focal lengths before IS was around?

IS is overrated, and only helps to prevent camera shake. It will not help stop motion in the frame or anything else. Do I use IS? Sure, because it does help in certain, limited circumstances, but I shot film for almost 10 years without an IS lens, and never had any issues. It's all about understanding the relationship between focal length and shutter speed, and being able to compensate. If you can't take a good telephoto shot in decent light without IS, I must question your abilities as a photographer.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Sure the F/4 version is tack sharp, and sharper than the 2.8, even at f/4 that doesnt mean the 2.8 version is any less of a lens.
Both IS versions of the 70-200 are weather sealed, while the non-IS versions are not.

I choose the 2.8 non-IS over the F/4 IS because I bought myself a monopod for $50 to counter hand-holding at longer focal lengths, and I want faster shutter speeds that the extra full stop gives me.

IS is nice, but none of my lenses have IS, ive never needed it. I dont often shoot indoors, and when I do, I use my 430EX II, for outdoors I am trying to get faster shutter speeds, not just being able to hand-hold my camera.

Do you need IS?

Although the F/4 is nice for extra sharpness wide open, smaller and weighs less, and have IS, for $100 USD less.

its up to you and what you shoot.

You said you will be using a mono/tripod, You dont really need IS then do you?