Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Or Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

Mustaf · Jun 3, 2016

I have a Canon 600D with two lens, one 50mm prime and another 18-135mm. I am looking for another telephoto lens and was kind of narrowing it down to 70-200mm.

While doing analysis, I found the above two lenses but the price diff is almost half for w/o IS. So, I want to know for this lens, is IS absolutely critical to pay double the amount? Can someone please share thoughts?

Thanks,

Drogba88 · Jun 3, 2016

I have the non-IS model and have handheld it for some shots, but I always carry my unipod just in case I have a situation where I cannot hold the camera and lens steady enough. If I had the choice I would buy the IS and pay the extra, but I bought mine used and saved a lot of dough. Whichever you choose, you won't be disappointed.

Suave · Jun 3, 2016

I used to own a non-IS version, and may be I just did not get a good copy, but I was never very happy with the results, the sharpness was not there most of the time. When I got a different 70-200, the improvement was nothing short of dramatic.

hotdog321 · Jun 3, 2016

Mustaf said:
I have a Canon 600D with two lens, one 50mm prime and another 18-135mm. I am looking for another telephoto lens and was kind of narrowing it down to 70-200mm.

While doing analysis, I found the above two lenses but the price diff is almost half for w/o IS. So, I want to know for this lens, is IS absolutely critical to pay double the amount? Can someone please share thoughts?

Thanks,

You get what you pay for. I'm a big believer in IS, especially with a relatively slow f/4 lens. A solid IS function is key to hand holding a lens in iffy light.

Look at the bright side--you could be shopping for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

HarryLally · Jun 3, 2016

I currently have both. I bought the IS version intending to sell the non-IS version but still haven't got round to it! In terms of IQ, there's nothing between them from 70-135 or so, then the IS version starts to slowly pull away and is certainly sharper at 200 (this is with both lenses on a tripod and IS turned OFF). , But the non-IS version is no slouch, very sharp and with v. slightly creamier colour. The IS version has v. slightly more contrast. In terms of handling, the lenses are quite light and compact and take very stable hand-held shots. But the IS is very quick and quiet (unlike say the 300 f4L IS) and a real boon for shooting at slow shutter speeds. Difficult to recommend one over the other optically, but the IS version maybe just takes the honours. Only you can say is the extra cost is worth it. You'll be happy with either, I'm sure.

Trout479 · Jun 3, 2016

I have the IS version and really like it. Remember that as your focal length gets longer, it gets harder to get sharp images due to inherent hand wobble, even on static objects. I would recommend the IS version.

Cakeshoppe · Jun 3, 2016

I'm also interested in these lenses. For owners of the IS version, how is the IS? What shutter speeds are you regularly able to hit hand-held?

I'm used to hand-holding the non-IS 400 f/5.6 but considering this for the intermediate telephoto range. I'm really only interested in the IS if it has a pretty strong effect.

StevenSHH · Jun 3, 2016

If you do not use tripod / monopod, then IS version is highly recommended.

greenlight149 · Jun 3, 2016

Cakeshoppe said:
I'm also interested in these lenses. For owners of the IS version, how is the IS? What shutter speeds are you regularly able to hit hand-held?
I'm used to hand-holding the non-IS 400 f/5.6 but considering this for the intermediate telephoto range. I'm really only interested in the IS if it has a pretty strong effect.

hotdog321 · Jun 4, 2016

greenlight149 said:
Cakeshoppe said:

I'm also interested in these lenses. For owners of the IS version, how is the IS? What shutter speeds are you regularly able to hit hand-held?
I'm used to hand-holding the non-IS 400 f/5.6 but considering this for the intermediate telephoto range. I'm really only interested in the IS if it has a pretty strong effect.

Click to expand...

Dave Sparks · Jun 5, 2016

Just had a 15-day trip to the Galapagos where I was real glad to have IS on my 70-200 f/4L, even more so when using the 1.4x TC with it. For my uses, I find the IS to be well worth the additional cost.

Dave · Jun 5, 2016

Dave Sparks said:
Just had a 15-day trip to the Galapagos where I was real glad to have IS on my 70-200 f/4L, even more so when using the 1.4x TC with it. For my uses, I find the IS to be well worth the additional cost.

What did you find needed the most length there?

Dave Sparks · Jun 5, 2016

Dave said:
Dave Sparks said:

Just had a 15-day trip to the Galapagos where I was real glad to have IS on my 70-200 f/4L, even more so when using the 1.4x TC with it. For my uses, I find the IS to be well worth the additional cost.

Click to expand...

What did you find needed the most length there?

A majority of the wildlife there is very close, almost underfoot at times, but there were times when they were distant (e.g., flamingos) and the reach was helpful. There were also some landscape shots and static objects (e.g., boats) that it was useful for. I actually didn't use the TC much at all. A serious birder in our group did a lot of shooting with I believe was a Sigma 150-600mm Nikon-mounted zoom (and got some very nice results). Saw some other birders using the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II. I'm not a serious birder so I found the 200mm on my 70D to be adequate and I wasn't interested in hauling a lot of weight around as we were boat-based with landings from Zodiacs.

Dave Sparks · Jun 5, 2016

Two differing examples of when I used 200mm:

Dave · Jun 5, 2016

Dave Sparks said:
Dave said:

Dave Sparks said:

Just had a 15-day trip to the Galapagos where I was real glad to have IS on my 70-200 f/4L, even more so when using the 1.4x TC with it. For my uses, I find the IS to be well worth the additional cost.

Click to expand...

What did you find needed the most length there?

Click to expand...

A majority of the wildlife there is very close, almost underfoot at times, but there were times when they were distant (e.g., flamingos) and the reach was helpful. There were also some landscape shots and static objects (e.g., boats) that it was useful for. I actually didn't use the TC much at all. A serious birder in our group did a lot of shooting with I believe was a Sigma 150-600mm Nikon-mounted zoom (and got some very nice results). Saw some other birders using the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II. I'm not a serious birder so I found the 200mm on my 70D to be adequate and I wasn't interested in hauling a lot of weight around as we were boat-based with landings from Zodiacs.

That's consistent with my experience there. I used length mostly for shots of dolphins and birds from the ship (we were on the Endeavour) and when shooting from pangas (less splash hazard than in Antarctica). A great experience.

RogerZoul · Jun 5, 2016

Mustaf said:
I have a Canon 600D with two lens, one 50mm prime and another 18-135mm. I am looking for another telephoto lens and was kind of narrowing it down to 70-200mm.

While doing analysis, I found the above two lenses but the price diff is almost half for w/o IS. So, I want to know for this lens, is IS absolutely critical to pay double the amount? Can someone please share thoughts?

Thanks,

The IS is critical only if you believe it is or it you have a need to shoot in low light. I shot with the 400mm f/5.6 for nearly two years without issues. Just shoot a lot and learn what the min shutter speed you need to ensure sharp shots. Focus on technique, too. I think IS is making people sloppy shooters, but it is nice to have if you don't mind the price and extra weight.

Abu Mahendra · Jun 5, 2016

Cakeshoppe said:
I'm also interested in these lenses. For owners of the IS version, how is the IS? What shutter speeds are you regularly able to hit hand-held?
I'm used to hand-holding the non-IS 400 f/5.6 but considering this for the intermediate telephoto range. I'm really only interested in the IS if it has a pretty strong effect.

Bert_vargas · Jun 6, 2016

especially if shooting at 200, IS does help when lighting is less than ideal. Granted, it will not stop action, but IS comes in VERY handy at long focal lengths.

I have had both and IQ are very comparable. you are strictly paying more for the IS feature if you go with the IS model

Keith Z Leonard · Jun 6, 2016

Mustaf said:
I have a Canon 600D with two lens, one 50mm prime and another 18-135mm. I am looking for another telephoto lens and was kind of narrowing it down to 70-200mm.

While doing analysis, I found the above two lenses but the price diff is almost half for w/o IS. So, I want to know for this lens, is IS absolutely critical to pay double the amount? Can someone please share thoughts?

If you can afford the IS version get it. Otherwise don't be ashamed of the non-IS It's a fantastic lens, the IS is a bit better and well...has IS. Some of my fav shots are from my 70-200 f4 L. I don't use it a ton anymore because I prefer the 135 f2 L, but can't bring myself to sell it, when I do use it, it simply delivers.

AdriaanMeijer · Jun 7, 2016

Mustaf said:
I have a Canon 600D with two lens, one 50mm prime and another 18-135mm. I am looking for another telephoto lens and was kind of narrowing it down to 70-200mm.

While doing analysis, I found the above two lenses but the price diff is almost half for w/o IS. So, I want to know for this lens, is IS absolutely critical to pay double the amount? Can someone please share thoughts?

Thanks,

I have been able to test both lenses on my own camera.

There is a visible difference in image quality, where the IS is really better than the non-IS

The IS of the 70-200 f/4 IS is really good.

I think that, even with the price-difference, the IS-version is preferable. But of course: only if you agree and can spare that amount of money.

(this lens is my favorite)

--
/All in my humble opionion of course!
/If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Or Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

New member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Active member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts