Canon 70-200mm F/4L USM with or without IS?

Hi,

I am pondering whether to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm F/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 in combination 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, especially sports photography indoor, outdoor, sunny days, cloudy days, etc.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

I have the non-IS version and I am going to move to either the IS f\4 or IS F\2.8.

You have a APS-C camera, so at 200mm you are at a 320mm equivalent FL. For off tripod shots at 200mm indicated on the lens, you will probably want your shutter speed to be at 1/500 or faster. So, take a look at your shooting conditions, what ISO do you need for f\4 and 1/500? is that going to work for you? If you have the IS version you can go 3-4 stops slower - three stops would give you 1/125 shutter speed, or you could back your ISO down.

Both lenses will give you great IQ and sharpness, it just depends on how much light you have to work with and what look you are trying to get. The IS version gives you some more options, but costs more.

The 70-200 F/4L IS is sharper than the non IS version and it's weather sealed.

The IS won't stop subject motion any better than the non-IS, but it will allow you to gain up to 4 stops.

Take a look at this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The IS version besides having IS is better optically and until the 2.8 mk2 was released was considered to the be the best 70-200 available for canon.  The F4 IS is an excellent lens, it is one the the lenses that is always in my bag now.  It also works really well with the mk3 x1.4 converter, another reason it never leaves my  bag.

Sylvain P wrote:

The 70-200 F/4L IS is sharper than the non IS version and it's weather sealed.

Plus it's more flare resistant.

R2

For outdoor sports, & general photography with movement, especially in good light, the nonIS should give good results. No make that fabulous results!! I have the IS version, but you should be as blown away by it as I am with mine. Good technique a nice camera like your 60D, & you are loaded for bear, believe me. You wont regret it. [You might be able to notice that I quite like this lens? :-D]

Ricson wrote:

SnwAngel360 wrote:

Hi,

I am pondering whether to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm F/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 in combination 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, especially sports photography indoor, outdoor, sunny days, cloudy days, etc.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

a lens with IS will definitely prove its worth when shooting handheld. no matter how stable you hold your camera, there will be some minimal shake and that will definitely get you creepy output unless your IS is turned on. its not always possible to shoot with a tripod...so go for the IS lens. Its worth the investment.

I wonder if the OP waited a year for that answer

SnwAngel360 wrote:

Hi,

I am pondering whether to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm F/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 in combination 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, especially sports photography indoor, outdoor, sunny days, cloudy days, etc.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Just grab the IS version, especially you are on 70-200 zoom range. Unless you think you will never bring this lens after 6pm.