70-200 f/4, why get the IS version?

Started Aug 26, 2011 | Discussions thread
Johan01 Regular Member • Posts: 459
Re: 70-200 f/4, why get the IS version?

soundwave2 wrote:

Been comparing these two, and the reviews are very good for both. Seems like these lenses are great.

70-200 non IS:
no IS
a bit lighter
1999 design

70-200 IS:
4-stops iS (claimed? or truth?)
a tad heavier
2006 design

I don't see any more difference between the two. Is there any more?

The IS version is double the price of the non-IS. And this is something to consider seriously.

I generally take handheld photos--shooting kids/family most of the time. No time really to set it up on a tripod as you have to follow kids around. Having a longer focal length gives me the advantage of shooting from afar and the kids won't cover their faces when you shoot them. This will be the main purpose of getting any one of these lenses.
Sometimes I do shoot videos. I have a 550D.

Since both are f/4, there is not much difference whether I shoot indoors or not. Using a flash is another issue/topic altogether.

Why pay more for the IS version? Is IS important for this lens and its focal range? How important is IS for this lens?

I read some of the other replies in this thread and I can see how it might get confusing with so many people arguing.

Here's some lens TESTS! I have the 70-200 f4 IS, and find it to be perfect.



The only major difference from an IQ standpoint is flare control, which the IS version does better.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow