canon 70-200 f4 non-IS vs IS

[tmd77]

Ok so i've been trawling through searches and google and anything i can get my hands on to try and find one thing out - Is the canon 70-200 IS version actually worth double than what the non-IS version is?

I don't have a "style" of photography yet, as i'm still feeling my way in this hobby.

i can get the non-IS version for about $720, with the IS version for about $1,200, and with the aussie dollar at the moment it makes it quite attractive, but $500 is a huge difference in price.

In my mind i'm thinking of going with the non-IS to start with and as i get more and more experience, then upgrade to the IS version when required.

i understand the physical elements of what benefits that IS have, but what i'm looking for is the practical experience of members here who have used both the non-IS and IS versions and whether in their opinion the IS is actually worth $500 more or not?

I'd value any contributions that you might have!

thanks in advance

[Bercy]

I don't have any IS lenses in my swag. I do have the 70-200l F4. This is a terrific lens. There are the basic rules of shutter speed inverse to focal length. In good daylight conditions I have not experienced any notable problems of blurring due to overt camera shake. When It counts I usually use a tripod. I guess I don't miss something I have never had though. The quality of the images and bokeh are pretty good. I think for $700 it is outstanding value. You could get a top notch tripod with the change, although I daresay you already have one!

[JM Tran]

I have gotten shots at 1/15th and 1/20th, and a few at 1/10th if I brace better, all hand held at 150mm to 200mm focal length with the 70-200 F4 IS, its almost humanly impossible to do so due to our heart beat and pulse and body movement, unless u are Robocop

I have gotten many shots at slow shutter speed to draw in more light, such as with flash for more ambient lighting behind the subject, or low light situations - IS is invaluable to my kind of work in wedding, commercial, fashion and travel photography.

Just spend 500 more and get it and be over and done with instead of selling the non IS and buying the IS later, I dont see the logic in that. You can learn on both lenses the same - IS can be turned off with a flick of a switch to turn into a non IS lens, naturally.

[amuller]

I have gotten shots at 1/15th and 1/20th, and a few at 1/10th if I brace better, all hand held at 150mm to 200mm focal length with the 70-200 F4 IS, its almost humanly impossible to do so due to our heart beat and pulse and body movement, unless u are Robocop

I have gotten many shots at slow shutter speed to draw in more light, such as with flash for more ambient lighting behind the subject, or low light situations - IS is invaluable to my kind of work in wedding, commercial, fashion and travel photography.

Just spend 500 more and get it and be over and done with instead of selling the non IS and buying the IS later, I dont see the logic in that. You can learn on both lenses the same - IS can be turned off with a flick of a switch to turn into a non IS lens, naturally.

wow 1/15 at 200m so IS did help or not ?

[JM Tran]

wow 1/15 at 200m so IS did help or not ?

of course it did, thats why I wrote it, but it really depends on the user and other variables and condition.

[carrg1954]

Yes it is.
If you buy the non IS now and decide later to go with the IS, then expect to take a 20-25% hit when you sell it. The IS will be dearer again as well.
There will be debate long and hard about which version of the 70-200 is sharper, any of them produce excellent IQ. It comes down to , if you think you are going to shoot low light without a flash, then even the f4 is not for you regardless of IS. The version for you is 2.8, then the non IS is $1450 and the IS (ii) is $2900.
I've had my IS f4 version three years and its is a great lens, and sharp at F4. Some complain that the IS is noisy, yes you can hear it, but I don't know what the fuss is about. The hood though is worse than the 28-70 2.8, though you just need to line it up and its sweet, Canon skimpt on those little red dots and didn't spring for a tripod ring either. How low a shutter speed you can go is more about you and not the lens. You need to accept that the keeper rates always go down when you are outside the 1/(focal length) rule. The IS on the f4 will give you 3 stops, and yes I know someone may come back and say its 4 stops, that's their call though.
Also about the tripod ring, go no name and save the dollars. I'd look at what you currently have with your 55-250, what % of these are 200-250 in focal range , and what are in the 70-200 , this may assist you in the answer if this lens is what you need. I'd also take your 450 along and try them to make sure the balance is ok, as I can't say there. Its your budget and at the end of the day you need to be happy with whatever your pick. We all have a bias, and I dont mean anything by that, other than my opinion is to get the the f4 IS version, someone less who decides the non IS was a better fit will give tha,t while others who go for either of the 2.8 versions. Its important to remember the lens info is in the metadata for us gearheads, everyone else just sees a photo. regards

[ZedEx]

Yes it is.
If you buy the non IS now and decide later to go with the IS, then expect to take a 20-25% hit when you sell it.

Purchase secondhand and this issue generally goes away. The 70-200 f4 non is is already quite cheap, and on the used market it is unlikely to get any cheaper still.

To the OP, I have the f2.8 non is version, which to me is necessary, but for a lot of users this may not be so.

[Bercy]

That's pretty impressive - to get pin sharp shots at 1/15 Tv. I guess on wedding shoots you can hardly do reportage shots with a tripod - please hold that emotionally significant shot whilst I set up my tripod and shutter release. With my current kit a tripod is a must for low light shots. I guess, on relflection and reading Cargg comments above, I'd shell out the additional smackers and get the benefits of the newer technology. Most people are starting to expect razor sharp shots no matter what the state of lux. Good luck.

[JM Tran]

I would like to add that an F2.8 lens is not really that ideal for indoors low light if you want to use a 70-200 indoors all the time, a prime such as the much smaller Canon 100mm F2 is a better alternative - cheaper and lighter too, and sharper

[tmd77]

thanks for the replies so far guys it's much appreciated!!!

[mitgonk]

For what it's worth, I am about to purchase the 70-200 f/4 IS lens as well.
i chose the f/4 version because:

IS is a neccesity for me, as well as weatherproofing. Becuase i would be using this lens for sports during my rugby season (rain), travelling as well as lowish light shots like indoors where IS would help.

the f/4 IS version has 3rd gen IS- apparently 4 stops comp. as well as weather sealing- the same as the mkII 2.8 70-200! though i can't put another 1000 or so bucks down for the 2.8!

[Clubmanmc]

hand holding a 15th can be tricky though, as the subject does need to be still...

i agree but disagree with IS, as the subject doesnt allways understand that i am doing a "slower than usual" shot to get the ambient light into the picture...

M

[JM Tran]

hand holding a 15th can be tricky though, as the subject does need to be still...

i agree but disagree with IS, as the subject doesnt allways understand that i am doing a "slower than usual" shot to get the ambient light into the picture...

M

Only works in a controlled environment Mike One can tell the model or subject to remain still but for candid stuff and most things, 1/15th and 1/20th is a bit too slow

thats why I never use the F4 IS indoors, its been F2 and higher ISO and around 1/100th or higher for a while now for wedding photography indoors

[TaintedSoul]

I'm also looking at purchasing this lens. The IS is a little out of my preferred bracket though.

I think the motorsport bug has bitten. Would the the Non-IS be suitable?

[Clubmanmc]

Only works in a controlled environment Mike One can tell the model or subject to remain still but for candid stuff and most things, 1/15th and 1/20th is a bit too slow

thats why I never use the F4 IS indoors, its been F2 and higher ISO and around 1/100th or higher for a while now for wedding photography indoors

yeah thats what i was trying to point out.. all is good!!

have done some wedding stuff with my 100-400 at 1/30th (before i had a 70-200 F2.8) hand held, as the wedding was a little of a disaster, it was really over cast and there was rain intermittant... so we had to shoot when it was fine but by that stage very dark...

shots were good... not great but worth doing...

M

[Clubmanmc]

I'm also looking at purchasing this lens. The IS is a little out of my preferred bracket though.

I think the motorsport bug has bitten. Would the the Non-IS be suitable?

better off going to F2.8 to get a faster lens, also gives you the opportunity to use a 1.4x or 2.0x extender that would give you a little more length for a little bit more...

depending on the motorsport and your accesss, 70-200 may be a little too short...

100-400 is quite a good compromise, and has good reach

I have used one for a long time and they work quite well, the IQ is great...

M

[JODEAN]

I also use a 70-200 2.8L is for BMX shots & it does the job quite well. Only down side is by the end of the weekend you know you have had it hanging off the front of you.

Dean.

[TaintedSoul]

depending on the motorsport and your accesss, 70-200 may be a little too short...

Access shouldn't be a problem really. I managed to get some nice shots with my kit 17-85 last weekend (to come). I was right on a slow turn so mostly hovered at about 50mm anyway. Only problem was that I could only take a shot on the turn, anything leading up to or away was pointless.

The 2.8L is way out of my price range unfortunately, IS or not.

[JODEAN]

Best advice I was given was buy the best you can afford so you only have to buy once.

Dean.

[David]

I have been eyeing of the 2.8 versions of the 70-200mm for a couple of months now and decided it is horses for courses - my main aim will be landscapes which more often than not will involve a tripod so the IS would be waste of the extra dollars for me most of the time. In an ideal world, with the extra weight in the 2.8 version of the Canon 70-200mm IS would be the go..worth waiting till you get the extra dollars to afford the IS ? In the long run as a general guide, yes. Buy once and buy right for you in your situation for your interest area right now is a good principle to adopt. I culled my lenses to suit my particular genre (landscapes) and plan to make more intelligent purchases in the future.