EF 70-200mm 1:4L USM with or without IS

Hello,

I am pondering whether to buy the EF 70-200mm 1:4L USM with or without IS. There is obviously a significant difference in price. I am wondering if this is apparent in the potential image quality (with a 60D)? Build quality of the lenses seems to be rather similar. And I am wondering if that IS is of any real significance in every day shooting - to phrase it a little provocatively). I am currently not necessarily a nature photographer but rather interested in street and portraits (moving ones, considering my child).

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Frank

frapapa wrote:

Hello,

I am pondering whether to buy the EF 70-200mm 1:4L USM with or without IS.

Frank

I have the IS version, and a friend of mine had the non-IS version. She needs this lens for her jobs. When she tested mine on her 5D II she immediately traded-in hers for an IS version. She said that my lens produced much sharper pictures. So it may be worth checking some lab reviews before going for the cheaper and older non-IS version.

IS, too, is a nice feature if you do stills or don't shoot fast moving objects since you can get sharp images at 1/30 s, I managed even 1/15 s when I had a good day. So it can compare a bit that this is no fast lens.

grampaeddy wrote:

Too big (long) and heavy, get a smaller zoom with IS.

Says the guy posting mostly in the 4/3rds forum.  Don't ever pick up a 70-200/2.8, 100-400, or something that is actually big such as a 400/2.8 then.  You may pull a muscle.

For street and fast critters (i.e. kids) the 70-200 is getting you too close (unless your recording nose hairs).

Its ok to cut the umbillical cord sometime before the kids get to be "fast critters" so you can get far enough away put a 70-200 to good use.

Plus a little wider end on the zoom can catch some of center detail you may want to crop down to later.

The only telephoto zoom lens wider than 70mm on crop is the 55-250.  Although its a great lens for the money, the 70-200's (all of them) are a jump in quality. Are you suggesting the 55-250 or worse yet, a superzoom such as a 18-200?

Back to the OP,  I find the f4 IS very nice to have IS in.

If you can afford it, get the IS version.

Although there will be many times when you don't need the IS and either version would be fine, I would rather have the IS and not use it, then not have it when I need it.

These guys have pretty well covered it, I have the non-IS and my copy is really sharp (others are too probably, dunno).  It would be nice to have IS on this lens but I honestly don't use it in situations where that is a requirement.  Being f4 I either use it in good light or with strobes.  Mostly it's used as an outdoor event lens with the shutter speed cranked up.

I generally agree with these guys though that if you can afford the IS version you should get it, it's known to be sharper and the IS comes in handy at times.  I am more than satisfied with the image quality from my 70-200 f4L though.  I have IS lenses covering 24-400mm though so if I need the IS I just use a different lens.

btw, I've used mine on the 7D and 5D3 and it's responsible for some of my favorite images.  I suppose though that if I were to be looking at 1000$ or so I might consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS HSM, a really good lens especially for the money, but it'll be considerably larger.

rebel99 wrote:

get the one with IS if you can afford it, you'll be glad you did it

cheerz.

+1!

I bought the non-IS version first because of cost, but after a few days I returned it and got the IS version with zero regrets. It's a beautiful lens. I just found that handheld at 200mm I was getting too much shake.

I have both lens.

Having IS opens new areas of photographic opportunity like twilight cityscape, stage performance and indoor candid.  My old non-IS version is strictly sunny-day only.

In addition to giving you 4-stop IS, it is sharper and is sealed against dust & moisture.

I have no doubt the IS version brings a small improvement in image quality and obviously IS; I got the non IS version as it allowed me to get another lens I coveted, the 10-22 for the price difference. So it depends not just on your budget but how much you're wiling to pay for a lens. Where I live taking even the non IS version involves some serious security considerations.

I'm in a similar debate after having borrowed a F4L (non-IS). (except that i'm considering a third lens also)

It is a fantastic lens, and the IS version is supposed to be even better. Of course, it's around twice the price too.

Another one I'm also considering is the fairly new Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 OS. Not a lot of info out there, but most of it seems to indicate that is a REALLY good lens. Major downside is that it's APS-C only, and around as heavy/bulky or even more so as the Canon 70-200F2.8L IS2. The price is very reasonable too at around 800 euros (Canon F4 IS costs 1100). Anyways, these guys: http://www.lenstip.com/364.1-Lens_review-Sigma_50-150_mm_f_2.8_APO_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Introduction.html  are rahter enthusiastic about it, claiming it can match sharpness on the canon 100mmL macro. I'm not sure how credible they are though...

The only reason I'm still hesitating is because the 70-200 is a tad too long for my likings on a crop like somebody else said. 70-200 is a superb midrange/portrait zoom range on full frame.

So all in all IS or not comes down to one question; are you willing to dough up a lot more for a slight boost in IQ, weather proofing and IS ? It's definately the better lens, but if you're using it strictly as a tele in good weather most of the benefits are irrelevant. Don't forget: you can always turn off IS but you can't turn it on if you don't have it

MysticX wrote:

I choose the 135mm f/2.8 SF most of the time over the 70-200 f/4 IS which generally stays home.

The 135mm prime is much smaller, much lighter, faster by 1 stop, as sharp and focuses quite fast and with precision.

I had three different copies of the 135 SF 2.8 over the years (as well as two copies of the 135 L 2.0) and used those copies on three different Canon DSLR's and they were not as sharp, but more importantly, didn't focus nearly as well, as my 70-200 F4 L IS.

As between the 70-200 F4 L IS v. non-IS, I have also owned both. As others have said, get the IS version. It is much more useful. Differences in IQ are negligible and the IS is definitely worth the price (find a used copy on CL if you want to save some $).

The only issue I have with the 70-200 F4 L IS (and I don't believe this was true of the non-IS version) is the MFD. I find the MFD on the IS version to be quite constricting at times and often have to resort to using extension tubes so I can get closer to my subjects.

On the flip side, the 70-200 F4 L's (both IS & non-IS) both work well with 1.4X TC. (I have an old Kenko Pro that is great with this lens.)

The rare occasions when I choose the 70-200mm is for events but I don't generally take photos at events.

The rest of the time, for family and travelling I always use the 135 prime.

-- hide signature --

Click Click ....