Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Canon 70-200 F4 L IS or non IS?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 of 15 OFFLINE   Eric Samonte

Eric Samonte

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 1999

Posted February 15 2011 - 12:40 PM

   I have decided I needed a longer reach and with much research, have decided on the F4L non IS. Then my wife goes, "Why get that when u can get the IS version?" Mind u, she doesn't even know what IS is but she says that from what I was telling her, the extra money seems worth it.
   So, my question is... it is really worth double the money? Some would say go for the 2.8 but I think the weight will turn me off, eventually me not using it as much. Besides, I can up my ISO if ever I need to use it indoors or in low light.


 



#2 of 15 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Executive Producer



  • 16,870 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted February 15 2011 - 02:57 PM

I rented the is version and loved it, if you can afford it and will use it I say go for it...

I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt


#3 of 15 OFFLINE   ManW_TheUncool

ManW_TheUncool

    Producer



  • 5,870 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 18 2001
  • Real Name:ManW

Posted February 15 2011 - 06:11 PM


Originally Posted by Eric Samonte 

 Some would say go for the 2.8 but I think the weight will turn me off, eventually me not using it as much. Besides, I can up my ISO if ever I need to use it indoors or in low light.



There can *NEVER* be enough light or ISO. Posted Image


Ok, not exactly always true, but if you plan to shoot in low light a lot (w/out strobes), then you can use *ALL* the light and ISO sensitivity you can muster.  Of course, as you open up the lens, you will also have to deal w/ shallow DoF, which can become an issue, though it probably won't be too shallow most times at f/2.8, if you're using a cropped body.  If anything, you might find that f/4 is not shallow enough for many cases (whether there's enough light or not).


But yeah, the weight can become an issue, especially if you're already sensitive to that.  I haven't been lugging my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 in a long time either since adding the Nikon 70-300 VR, but then again, my old Sigma didn't come w/ IS and didn't cost me nearly as much as the current going rate for the Nikon/Canon 70/80-200 f/2.8 IS (nor non-IS) either.  Plus I can always opt to bring my (optically better) Nikon 180 f/2.8 instead, if I think I need f/2.8 at the long end -- that combined w/ the 70-300 VR probably only weigh a little more than the Sigma alone although the combo requires more bag space to lug...


_Man_


Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things..." (St. Paul)

#4 of 15 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,845 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted February 16 2011 - 07:36 AM

I have the IS version of the Canon 70-200 F/4 because at that focal length, it's best to have something counteracting camera shake, and get more light at lower shutter speeds when possible.


"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#5 of 15 OFFLINE   Eric Samonte

Eric Samonte

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 1999

Posted February 16 2011 - 12:43 PM

Thanks for the reply guys. I guess if I could swing it, I'd better get the one with IS. Yipee! Now the hunt begins!



#6 of 15 OFFLINE   Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer



  • 10,620 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted February 17 2011 - 11:05 AM

The IS version also has updated elements, so the lens is sharper than the non-IS version. This was probably Canon's best zoom lens until the recently revised 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MKII.


I own the 70-200 f/4 IS, and it is a terrific lens. It has great image quality and lightening fast auto focusing. If you can afford it, I would highly recommend it. This lens is small and light enough to take when traveling, too. It will take a 1.4x teleconverter with very little degradation in image quality or auto focus speed or accuracy, if you need extra reach, too.



#7 of 15 OFFLINE   Eric Samonte

Eric Samonte

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 1999

Posted March 02 2011 - 03:46 AM

Got the thing and frankly I thought it'd be bigger and heavier. I guess its a welcomed surprise for me!

Haven't really tested it out but I noticed that the IS "whir" on every shot and it is quite noticeable? Is this the norm?



#8 of 15 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Executive Producer



  • 16,870 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted March 02 2011 - 07:01 AM

Yes it is.  Canon IS is a lot louder than Nikon VR.  You may even hear a 'knocking' effect.  This is normal.


I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt


#9 of 15 OFFLINE   Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer



  • 10,620 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted March 02 2011 - 11:40 PM



Originally Posted by Eric Samonte 

Got the thing and frankly I thought it'd be bigger and heavier. I guess its a welcomed surprise for me!

Haven't really tested it out but I noticed that the IS "whir" on every shot and it is quite noticeable? Is this the norm?



Yes, the IS mechanism does make a noise on most Canon lenses. The loudness will vary, depending on which lens model you have.


The smaller size and weight, compared to the f/2.8 version, is one of the reasons I love this lens (along with the great optics and super-quick auto focusing, of course). It's great for a general purpose telephoto when traveling. I also own the larger, heavier 100-400L, but I only take that lens when I know I'll need the extra reach.



#10 of 15 OFFLINE   Eric Samonte

Eric Samonte

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 1999

Posted March 03 2011 - 12:56 AM

Thanks for the info. Guess I just have to get used to it.

Just an FYI, I got a new one from OneCall, 12 months to pay. For a little over $100 a month, I get to own and enjoy a "white" Canon lens! And yes, my wife approved of it...



#11 of 15 OFFLINE   javig999

javig999

    Auditioning



  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 11 2011

Posted March 11 2011 - 07:18 PM

Congrats on the new glass! I am think this will be my final lens to round out my lineup. How is the f4 working out for you? Do you find yourself cranking up the ISO for indoor shots?



#12 of 15 OFFLINE   Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer



  • 10,620 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted March 12 2011 - 01:48 AM



Originally Posted by javig999 

Congrats on the new glass! I am think this will be my final lens to round out my lineup. How is the f4 working out for you? Do you find yourself cranking up the ISO for indoor shots?


This really isn't an indoor lens. However, if your camera body has decent high ISO performance, then you can get decent results.


The photos below were taken with my 7D and 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4 and ISO 6400.


http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/


http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/




#13 of 15 OFFLINE   Eric Samonte

Eric Samonte

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 1999

Posted March 12 2011 - 02:19 AM

So far so good. As Scott says, u can get good results with the ISO high up there. Been trying to use it with a flash but it seems that there is a definite learning curve to go that route as I've been getting so so results.

Hate to say this but the white color seem to attract people to "pose" for shots. I like taking candid shots more than posed ones. They also think I know what I'm doing...Posted Image....good for me I guess...



#14 of 15 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,845 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted March 14 2011 - 03:17 AM

Well, they do make some neoprene covers for those long lenses to camouflage the cream white-ness of their exteriors...


http://www.lenscoat.com/



"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#15 of 15 OFFLINE   javig999

javig999

    Auditioning



  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 11 2011

Posted March 14 2011 - 08:14 AM

Those shots look great...trying to sell a sub to fund this lens!