Upgrade to 70-200 f/4 IS?

[steved110]

This lens is so tempting me. I got to handle one before they were generally available and liked it - but was so happy with my non-IS version that i felt that the upgrade was not really worth it. since then i have read so much positive feedback on this lens - and the price has settled a bit.

I use my non-IS about 5% of the time - not much - but it is by far my favourite lens. If I sold my non IS, I could afford the newer lens - though obviously i'd take about a £150 hit on the resale, perhaps less if I was lucky with an ebay bidding frenzy. I'm not sure it's worth it, especially as it would delay getting a lens that really would add to my optical versatility rather than simply replace a niche.

So this query is really addressed to people who have made the jump to the f/4 IS lens. I'm not interested in the f/2.8 lenses. What do you think? should i go for it, or is my current useage so low that it isn't worth it? I am certainly happy with the non-IS, and to tell the truth the only reason I want to upgrade is because i like the idea of IS and feel that anything that helps reduce the shake in my pictures would be a good thing.

thoughts, people?

[Jakkin]

Not worth an upgrade, 2 reasons:

1. You only use this telephoto 5% of the time
2. IS only helps none moving subjects, it doesn't help you to freeze up the subjects, so try shoot with steady hands or use a mono/tripod.

If you were going for a 2.8 telephoto it'd make more sense. I love my F4 L but I have found situations where I wished I had 2.8 to make the pics less grainier because of the ISO you need to compensate.

[ed rader]

This lens is so tempting me. I got to handle one before they were generally available and liked it - but was so happy with my non-IS version that i felt that the upgrade was not really worth it. since then i have read so much positive feedback on this lens - and the price has settled a bit.

I use my non-IS about 5% of the time - not much - but it is by far my favourite lens. If I sold my non IS, I could afford the newer lens - though obviously i'd take about a £150 hit on the resale, perhaps less if I was lucky with an ebay bidding frenzy. I'm not sure it's worth it, especially as it would delay getting a lens that really would add to my optical versatility rather than simply replace a niche.

So this query is really addressed to people who have made the jump to the f/4 IS lens. I'm not interested in the f/2.8 lenses. What do you think? should i go for it, or is my current useage so low that it isn't worth it? I am certainly happy with the non-IS, and to tell the truth the only reason I want to upgrade is because i like the idea of IS and feel that anything that helps reduce the shake in my pictures would be a good thing.

thoughts, people?

i felt the same way Steve. but there are a couple of things to consider.

-- the IS version is sharper wide open. i know the non-IS is very sharp wide open but the IS is sharper. i used to stop my non-IS down to f4.5 but i shoot wide open almost all the time now.

-- you'll get more keepers. going through my pictures i now see few if any shots that are ruined by camera shake. you can use the IS version as a walkaround @ iso 100 and that's something i would never have attempted with the non-IS unless i was in full mid-day sunlight.

you can also use the IS version for handheld night photography and if you ever make the move to FF it becomes an even better walkaround lens.

you don't hear many complaints about the 4f IS except from maybe the people who complain about everything :D .

i say do it!

ed rader

[ed rader]

Not worth an upgrade, 2 reasons:

1. You only use this telephoto 5% of the time
2. IS only helps none moving subjects, it doesn't help you to freeze up the subjects, so try shoot with steady hands or use a mono/tripod.

If you were going for a 2.8 telephoto it'd make more sense. I love my F4 L but I have found situations where I wished I had 2.8 to make the pics less grainier because of the ISO you need to compensate.


here's what Steve said:

"So this query is really addressed to people who have made the jump to the f/4 IS lens. I'm not interested in the f/2.8 lenses."

ed rader

[steved110]

Thanks for the responses - Jakkin (??!) makes 2 points that I agree -with - I only use it 5% of the time - and IS doesn't freeze any motion ( except my own)

Ed makes better points, however, as they are kinda what I want to hear...

The keeper rate is definitely an issue - I find camera shake is a really noticeable feature at times when using this lens out at 200mm - and you often don't realise until you are home looking at the pictures on screen.

It comes down to the fact that if you have never had IS and never felt particularly handicapped by the lack, then you are probably not going to want to change. i have noticed the camera shake issue, and I have never read a bad thing about IS that counts. I know that proper technique is a big part of the shake issue, and I know that a tripod is the true answer - I have a great one, but it is a pain in the rear to carry around.

So should I upgrade? Using the lens 5% of the time doesn't really matter. It is the option to use it that matters - i have a 580EX that I have taken 100 shots with - but I have it becaiuse I want it. I have a P&S digital camera, with a pretty good zoom - so I don't need any of this stuff - I just want it!

I think I will probably do the upgrade thing - perhaps not immediately, as I have it on good authority that a 24-105 features in my near future...but later in the year very likely...unless something else takes my fancy - that's the problem with camera gear. Only Tareq has anything like enough, and he's still tormented...:confused:

[Jakkin]

here's what Steve said:

"So this query is really addressed to people who have made the jump to the f/4 IS lens. I'm not interested in the f/2.8 lenses."

ed rader


You can type in bold, red, now your point is?

Edit: I see your point, I didn't write to propose an upgrade to the 2.8, was just stating the fact that F4 to F2.8 would be a real upgrade, but F4 to F4 IS to me, isn't. No need for the red/bold - I can read.

[Tsmith]

I'd like to make the move to the IS version too and will some day but for now I must concentrate on my coming computer build.

[Collin85]

For me atleast, I would upgrade. My telephoto photography rarely revolves around action, and I do alot of evening shots. The IS has been a life-saver in many situations. The 4-stops claim also stands up pretty well, from my experiences.

I think it really comes down to your photography. If action work isn't where your priorities are, and you tend to take lots of shots in poor ambience lighting, the IS will save you many times. Being able to get keepers at 200mm, 1/13th sec. during an evening cityskape shoot the other week allowed me to leave my tripod at home. On the other hand, you say you don't use the 70-200 much. If you also tend to shoot in great lighting, you probably don't need to upgrade.

[Lightstream]

So this query is really addressed to people who have made the jump to the f/4 IS lens. I'm not interested in the f/2.8 lenses. What do you think? should i go for it, or is my current useage so low that it isn't worth it? I am certainly happy with the non-IS, and to tell the truth the only reason I want to upgrade is because i like the idea of IS and feel that anything that helps reduce the shake in my pictures would be a good thing.

thoughts, people?


Go for it. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The 70-200/4 is awesome value for money and this makes it hard to displace, but the stabilizer enables me to play so many different tricks that I simply could not with fast glass. I won't go into detail.. the forums will only tell me 'it can't be done' but my editor now believes they can after seeing and loving the results, so that is Good Enough(tm) for me.

IS is a new technology in its infancy. It works well for its primary purpose, but I also feel we should find new and creative ways to stretch it. I am certainly doing that.

[Rubberhead]

I was in the same delima with upto $1000 to spend on a new lens. I considered the EF-S 17-55mm IS. I considered the 17-40mm F/4L. But I came to the conclusion that the 70-200mm is also perfect for me and the I rarely use my nifty, or the kit lens. So I considered selling the 70-200mm F/4L non-IS and getting the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS.

I finally decided to upgrade to the IS version of the 70-200mm F/4L. It will be here on Monday. This lens adds Canon's most advanced, 4-stop IS and weather-proofing so, yes, I consider it an upgrade. To say that IS doesn't help on moving objects is to forget what Mode 2 IS does for panning.

The facts that helped me make up my mind were that for stationary objects, both the 70-200mm F/4L IS and F/2.8L have an effective aperature of 1.0 since the IS on the F/2.8 is only a 3-stop IS versus a 4-stop for the F/4. I couldn't see spending an additional $600 and doubling the weight of the lens just to add one stop on the subject side of the camera.

I could actually take the $600 savings and upgrade my XT to a 30D and get the extra stop with ISO 3200.

For me, the F/2.8L IS makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll let you know on Monday whether or not I regret the upgrade...

[ed rader]

For me atleast, I would upgrade. My telephoto photography rarely revolves around action, and I do alot of evening shots. The IS has been a life-saver in many situations. The 4-stops claim also stands up pretty well, from my experiences.

I think it really comes down to your photography. If action work isn't where your priorities are, and you tend to take lots of shots in poor ambience lighting, the IS will save you many times. Being able to get keepers at 200mm, 1/13th sec. during an evening cityskape shoot the other week allowed me to leave my tripod at home. On the other hand, you say you don't use the 70-200 much. If you also tend to shoot in great lighting, you probably don't need to upgrade.

the lens becomes more versatile then and you might find yourself using it more.

ed rader

[RedMatrixXRS]

I

For me, the F/2.8L IS makes no sense whatsoever.



what do you mean it makes no sense. some people need that extra stop. as for me, that extra stop has saved me in my short time of owning it.

[mrfourcows]

its a matter of whether you want to tie up your money here.

i mean, even witht he 7-2 f4 IS, you might still use it only 5% of the time, but you will get more satisfaction with sharper images and a higher keeper rate. though, it comes at a cost.

not an easy decision though.

[mrfourcows]

what do you mean it makes no sense. some people need that extra stop. as for me, that extra stop has saved me in my short time of owning it.

there's rubberhead, and there's you. just because the 1-stop doesn't help him doesn't mean it doesn't help you. vice-versa. shooting styles.

[cosworth]

I upgraded. Worth it - yes for me. For you? You might use it more.

broken record here - I have severe tendonitis from how much shooting I do. I have the F/4. If I had the 2.8 I'd need amputation of my right arm I'm sure.

[RTRIDER]

Steve, you know you want it, and like Ed says, as the lens becomes more versatile, surely you are going to use it a lot more, and have a lot more keepers. I have just moved up to a 70-200 L F4, and I know it is limiting, but I think and hope as the seasons brighten up :D I will get a lot more brighter shots on a lower ISO.
There is nothing wrong with wanting more. You work hard enough for it:D

[Rubberhead]

what do you mean it makes no sense. some people need that extra stop. as for me, that extra stop has saved me in my short time of owning it.

My point is that I can spend $1700 on the F/2.8 IS or I can spend $1050 on the F/4 IS and $650 upgrading my Camera to the 30D where I get the extra stop of light with ISO 3200 since my Rebel is only good for ISO 1600. If I upgrade my camera, then I get the extra stop of light with all my lenses. Plus since I like to travel light, I prefer the weight of the F/4.

Besides, the F/4 is quantifiably a sharper lens when compared at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8.

That's what I meant.

[Lightstream]

My point is that I can spend $1700 on the F/2.8 IS or I can spend $1050 on the F/4 IS and $650 upgrading my Camera to the 30D where I get the extra stop of light with ISO 3200 since my Rebel is only good for ISO 1600. If I upgrade my camera, then I get the extra stop of light with all my lenses. Plus since I like to travel light, I prefer the weight of the F/4.

That's what I meant.

My reasoning exactly.....that's why I chose this rig.

[condyk]

It is on my list along with the 70-300mm IS and the Sigma 100-300mm 4.0. The latter lens is better IQ than the 70-200mm 4.0 I had but it doesn't have IS. The reason for the two IS lenses is simply I know I will get lots more keepers and that is what the shooting game is about. The more you can keep the more your creative side can blossom. I sold my 70-200mm because I didn't like the lower light performance, the whiteness and also the range was next to useless for me personally. As a suppliment for my 400mm L then there is good logic to having the IS because it offers more keepers and good flexibility when animals are closer. You have to decide if you aren't using the non-IS because of range or because of shake. If the former then IS won't help you bump your 5% usage. My logic tells me I would get more use from the 70-300mm IS at a cost of some very minor IQ difference, because it is small and black and longer, i.e. I could use it for walkabout candids much easier. It is really about considering your primary interests. For me it is wildlife (in Africa rather than UK!) and so I need some flexibility to zoom at closer distances and a reduced MFD over the 400mm, and walkaround, where I need to be less obvious. What do you need yours for?

[JimAskew]

... So this query is really addressed to people who have made the jump to the f/4 IS lens. ... thoughts, people?

Steve,

If you will forgive me for breaking your rules I would like to respond. I have been through a similar analysis as you have and I have decided to upgrade to the 70-200MM f/4 IS as soon as I get my tax return back.

I use my current 70-200MM f/4 to photogrph my grandkids at play and also for outdoors sports.

I like to stand back to one corner of the park and after a while the kids forget about me and I then can capture some great candids. I want the IS as my hands are not that steady at the longer focal ranges...I do have a monopod and do use it...but I much perfer the handheld approach.

I have learned the value of IS from my experience with the 17-55 EF-S IS and I eagerly look forward to obtaining the same experience from the 70-200MM f/4 IS soon.

Thanks,

[kuebaldy]

I'm still pretty much at the bottom of the learning curve so I will only say it's awesome. I just got mine and can't say enough good things about it. I have shaky hands and now that I have ( IS ) i'll never look back.

[Rubberhead]

I've done a little more research and found this on Photozone:

"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date."

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm under verdict.

[wimg]

Wel,, I just upgraded quite a bit: from 350D to 400D, and the 70-200 F/4 non-IS to the IS version :).

For a short while I shot with both, in both cases. In both cases I found you have to get used to the newer stuff, as they do handle differently, even though they look very similar.

Summary conclusions:

The 400D is a better camera than the 350D, for me anyway, mostly because of the larger LCD, the faster and better AF, and the RGB histogram. It was worth the 215 euro upgrade cost to me.

The 70-200 F/4 L non-IS to IS was a 580 euro upgrade, and again, to me it was worth it. I used the older version only outdoors, really, and I did have a very sharp copy. However, comparing it to the IS version showed that with IS off, the new IS version is actually a grade sharper, and with IS on it is about the same. And I will use this lens indoors too, now; always felt I missed something in this regard, as I like to shoot handheld, without flash, indoors.

BTW, one of the things I like about the F/4 version is its handholdability when it comes to weight. To me, for genral purposes it is a great telezoom. I can think of reasons why and when I would liek to use the F/2.8 version, but when such an occasion occurs, I am sure I will create a budget for it. And I guess I'll get it in addition to the F/4. To me, they serve entirely different purposes.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

[sootyvrs]

I have just ordered the IS version to replace my very little used non IS version.

I recently purchased a 17-55 IS, which replaced my Tamron 17-50 and I was so impressed with the IS for reducing camera shake that I decided that the 70-200 IS would be of even greater benefit.

I've not got the steadiest of hands and when I did buy the non IS version, I did think that I wouldn't need IS as most of the time it would be used outdoor in good light.

I have examined some of my shots from an overcast day at 200mm at speeds of around 1/250 and there is definate some blur in the shots. I know I could have upped the ISO but by the time I did adjust it, the moment had gone. Don't get me wrong the non IS version is absolutely fantastic and if my copy of the new IS version is as good as the non IS version I have now, I'll be a very happy man.

That's my excuse, not that most of us need one!

I also thought that with IS, I'd probably use it indoor too, assuming the subjects are still.

Anyhow, get delivery on Tuesday. I just hope it's a good copy. I will hang on to my non IS version until then before I sell.

Someone is going to get a bargain on ebay as the lens is only a few months old and only been used once.

[steved110]

I've been preocuppied the last few days and lost track of this thread, but would like to thank all the people who took the time to contribute - all opinions most welcome!
Bottom line is, it seems that this IS version is sharper, and the IS boosts the keeper rate. Everybody agrees that this lens is worth the cost of an upgrade, what is harder to define is , is it worth it for me?

For my personal use, the reason I use the lens less is simply a fact of shooting style - most of my stuff is on the wider side. but I do love the lens - it makes a great portrait lens and as a medium tele zoom, can't be beat.

It certainly is not long enough for safari use, but I am not going on a safari for a while. When and if I need anything longer, i think I'll be looking at the 300 f/4 IS with a 1.4 TC or perhaps a 100-400 or perhaps a bigma.

But for now, my dream set of zoom lenses is based on the f/4 L offerings, and I will definitely be swapping this non-IS lens for one with IS. But I'll get the 24-105 first, as this range really does appeal, and covers a fair few gaps in focal length, without duplicating too much. Changing my 70-200 right now is a sideways step that would be better taken when my collection is a little better fleshed out.

Thanks for all the advice!

[NorCalAl]

I was lucky - I bought the non-IS about a week before the IS became available. So for me, $ aside, it was a no-brainer. I was able to return the non-IS one before I made the IS purchase. Yeah, I paid full pop for it, but it was worth it.
Be that as it may, now that I have the 100-400, I find the 70-200 sits home much of the time. I've toyed on and off with selling it to finance a move to the 2.8, but just haven't made up my mind.
Pondering aside, I'd certainly make the "upgrade" again.