70 200 f4 to IS or not ?

[drama]

Hi guys

I absolutely love my 70 200 f4, I have got almost all my personal favorites with that lens
I love the light weight & easy portability, not to forget the superb build quality, the FTM & superfast AF etc
I would love to have the IS version, all the reviews speak superlatively of it

I can just about afford it, Is it worth the extra money ?

[Viky]

With the 70-200 f/4 L, going by the general rule, one would ideally need a 1/320s ss for a 200mm hand held shot. This may not be a problem in bright sunlight, but under shade and indoors, this high ss would mean a higher ISO or a larger aperture... one would give you noise and the other a shallower DOF:(
imagine you had to take the shot at 1/320, f/4, ISO 1600.

Enter the 70-200 f/4 L IS:

1) it is supposed to have different & better optics than the 70-200 f/4 and sharper:)

2) it's weather sealed:)

3) it has the latest generation 4stop IS...this will allow you to hand hold the same shot at 1/20 at 200mm:eek:, now you could shoot it at 1/20, f/8, ISO 400:D for the same exposure with much lower noise and much larger DOF:D

I love the IS on my 70-300IS, even though its only 3stop.

[michaelb]

With the 70-200 f/4 L, going by the general rule, one would ideally need a 1/320s ss for a 200mm hand held shot. This may not be a problem in bright sunlight, but under shade and indoors, this high ss would mean a higher ISO or a larger aperture... one would give you noise and the other a shallower DOF:(
imagine you had to take the shot at 1/320, f/4, ISO 1600.

Enter the 70-200 f/4 L IS:

1) it is supposed to have different & better optics than the 70-200 f/4 and sharper:)

2) it's weather sealed:)

3) it has the latest generation 4stop IS...this will allow you to hand hold the same shot at 1/20 at 200mm:eek:, now you could shoot it at 1/20, f/8, ISO 400:D for the same exposure with much lower noise and much larger DOF:D

I love the IS on my 70-300IS, even though its only 3stop.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is definitley on my wish list. I am tempted at times by the 135L though instead - how would that be for my first L glass?!!!

[nqjudo]

Drama - All other things aside, for me personally it is worth the upgrade just for the IS. Having seen some of your work, it looks like you shoot subjects in a lot of conditions where IS would be ideal. Whether or not it is worth the extra money is best answered by you. Given your history, how many shots do you lose over a given period that would be made into keepers with IS? If you are losing a lot of shots due to low shutter speeds, you have your answer. There's nothing wrong with investing in your passions either. The market is good for used non-IS units so you won't be out a huge amount for the upgrade.

[Rhys]

If you don't have the 70-200 f4IS then it's the only lens worth considering. If you already have the 70-200 f4 non-IS then I doubt it's worth the upgrade. Personally, I went all IS with my latest lenses. I started out with the following:

50 f1.8
18-55 Kit lens
28-85 f2.8 Tamron
70-300 Tamron
17-35 Tamron.

I have since sold my 50 f1.8 and 70-300 Tamron because they wouldn't focus worth a damn.

I subsequently bought a 17-85 IS and a 70-300 IS (both Canon). I find the 17-85 IS is the one I use 90% of the time. Despite what all the vocal anti-17-85IS people say, it's a damned fine lens and I have zero problems with CA or distortion. Now I did get horrible CA with the 70-300 Tamron. I have not had it with my 70-300 Canon. My only trouble with the 70-300 is that sometimes the IS throws a wobbly and kicks in on its own. The solution there is simply to power down and power up again.

I would not now buy a lens without IS - if possible.

[GaryS]

When I bought my Canon 70-300, I was considering the 70-200 non-IS. But I decided that I needed the IS for the kind of shooting I do. And I didn't want to spend the extra to get the IS version of the 70-200.

My experience has been that I made a good choice. The 300 is WAY slower to AF, but I don't use it for fast moving objects so thats no problem. And someday I will upgrade to the 70-200IS.

You have to decide based on your shooting needs....

[coldrain]

The IS version is of course worth considering. Optically it is even better, and 3-4 stop IS... it is definitely a worthwhile upgrade.

Go for it, I would say, it is a lens without competition.

[DonSchap]

If you have a Canon EOS body ... then don't hesitate. Just buy it and get shooting. Your results should be a lot better than your other lenses, overall.

Some things go without having to comment further on. This is one of them. :)

[drama]

Thanks every one for so overwhelmingly, supporting for the upgrade :)
I am going to trade in my non IS & the Tamron macro
I dont use the macro much, so that should make the upgrade pretty painless

A tripod is pretty much useless for my style of shooting, most times
I need it for the moon shots
So even though I invested in a good manfrotto, I would love to have the IS

[DonSchap]

Yeah ... I like IS on ALL of my lenses ... so I bought a SONY.

I know just what you mean. :D LOL

[Rhys]

Yeah ... I like IS on ALL of my lenses ... so I bought a SONY.

I know just what you mean. :D LOL

Lol. True. I thought IS was gimicky until I tried it. I'm sold on it now though. I will now buy only lenses with IS. I gather the in-body IS is good up to 800mm. After that, you should be using a tripod anyway :D

[Prospero]

The 70-200 f/4 IS is definitley on my wish list. I am tempted at times by the 135L though instead - how would that be for my first L glass?!!!

I recently got an old manual focus 135 f/2.8 lens for my Nikon D50. I really love that length on a crop camera. I find that I use it a lot for my landscape photography to take a picture of a certain detail of a landscape.
Also the depth of field wide open is very small due to the long focal length; with the 135L f/2.0 this will be even better. This gives very nice subject isolation and great bokeh.

[michaelb]

I recently got an old manual focus 135 f/2.8 lens for my Nikon D50. I really love that length on a crop camera. I find that I use it a lot for my landscape photography to take a picture of a certain detail of a landscape.
Also the depth of field wide open is very small due to the long focal length; with the 135L f/2.0 this will be even better. This gives very nice subject isolation and great bokeh.



The images I have seen from the 135L are like no other. I hate big white lenses, but I must admit that the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much more practical choice.


Sometimes I do enjoy taking the road less traveled though....:D

50mm f/1.8 @ f/2.5....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/221883696-M.jpg

[nqjudo]

Drama - I've been thinking about this for a while but today I decided to follow your lead. I ordered the 70-200 F/4 IS this evening. I'll be putting the 70-300 IS up for sale.

[drama]

nqjudo cool :)
I think you made a good decision, both of us already have the 1.4 X TC, so we wont miss the range either

[coldrain]

nqjudo cool :)
I think you made a good decision, both of us already have the 1.4 X TC, so we wont miss the range either
Yes you will ;) (a little bit :D)
200 x 1.4 = 280 :D;)

[Rhys]

nqjudo cool :)
I think you made a good decision, both of us already have the 1.4 X TC, so we wont miss the range either

Since the 70-300 is f4-5.6, you won't miss the dark f-stop either as the 1.4 plus the 70-200 will give you f5.6.

[nqjudo]

Since the 70-300 is f4-5.6, you won't miss the dark f-stop either as the 1.4 plus the 70-200 will give you f5.6.

This is true but... I grabbed my friend's 70-200 and did some tests with the 1.4x. The 70-200 with the TC is sharper and focuses faster than the 70-300 at every focal length. I found my 70-300 lacking in sharpness at the long end so I surely won't be missing that either. :D

The IS is more capable by about a stop on the 70-200 than the 70-300 and the 70-200 has no rotating focus, making the use of a CPL easier.

[drama]

Well the moon was out tonight

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2047648802_02433c2a96_o.jpg

Guess the lens :D
280 mm hanheld f8 1/250 iso 400

[Rhys]

This is true but... I grabbed my friend's 70-200 and did some tests with the 1.4x. The 70-200 with the TC is sharper and focuses faster than the 70-300 at every focal length. I found my 70-300 lacking in sharpness at the long end so I surely won't be missing that either. :D

The IS is more capable by about a stop on the 70-200 than the 70-300 and the 70-200 has no rotating focus, making the use of a CPL easier.

Oddly enough, I bought the 70-300 to use as an IS 70-200. I might sell it at some point and get the 70-200 but not just yet. I am still dragging bits together for my portable studio. I'll set some of it up today or tomorrow to test the lighting out on my niece.

[chardog]

I definitely wouldnt buy an f4 IS. I'de put that money on a faster lens... f2.8.

I've had a few IS lens (all sold now), and the only one I felt really needed it was the 100-400mm. IMO, IS is not worth it.

[Nickcanada]

I definitely wouldnt buy an f4 IS. I'de put that money on a faster lens... f2.8.

I've had a few IS lens (all sold now), and the only one I felt really needed it was the 100-400mm. IMO, IS is not worth it.

Wow, that's not a sweeping generalization. :rolleyes:

It would really depend on your shooting style and what you choose to shoot.... no?

[nqjudo]

Yup, generalization for sure especially considering that the 100-400 is a 1st generation IS and a huge part of the user community are chomping at the bit for an update on the design. The IS in the 70-200 f/4 is the latest generation IS so it is by far the more capable and useful of the two. Not everyone needs a 2.8 so for many its not worth the extra cost and weight. It all boils down to what and how you shoot. One man's 2.8 or IS is another man's waste of money.

[michaelb]

Wow, that's not a sweeping generalization. :rolleyes:

It would really depend on your shooting style and what you choose to shoot.... no?

Agreed; I shoot primarily stationary objects and for me an f/4 IS lens would trump an f/2.8 without IS. Granted the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a nice lens, but its too damn big for me to hike with, etc - I would much rather have the 70-200 f/4 IS.

[michaelb]

Well the moon was out tonight

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2047648802_02433c2a96_o.jpg

Guess the lens :D
280 mm hanheld f8 1/250 iso 400

Great shot Drama; I've got to try one of these moon shots one day. I know this is totally off topic, but how do you meter for the moon anyway?

[Zoinac]

Which lenses are fall under the umbrella of "NEW IS"? I have the 28-135 IS, it's good for 2 stops, but I'd love to get my hands on a 3 to 4 stop IS lens. Either a telephoto, or a zoom. I looked on the canon website(s), and really, they only say IS, not how good the IS is.

Where can I find this info?

[nqjudo]

Which lenses are fall under the umbrella of "NEW IS"? I have the 28-135 IS, it's good for 2 stops, but I'd love to get my hands on a 3 to 4 stop IS lens. Either a telephoto, or a zoom. I looked on the canon website(s), and really, they only say IS, not how good the IS is.

Where can I find this info?

I don't know of a comprehensive resource that lists all Canon lenses with their respective IS generations and design specifications. I guess they could be found individually on various review sites. Relative to this thread, the 100-400 IS specs are 1 - 1.5 stops, the 70-200 f/2.8 is 3 stops and the 70-200 f/4 is 4 stops.

[drama]

Thanks michaelb :)

Spot metering with a bit of underexposure works well, f8 to f11 for best results
I usually start with f8 & following the meter reccomendation, usually I take 30 shots or so, yesterday I took 6, all of them are keepers !!