Question for EF 70-200mm f/4 L users

[OceanView]

I am thinking about buying this lens or the IS version.
Most people seem to be happy with the price and functionality of the F4.

My question is this.
When you are fully extended (200mm) and shoot while holding, how often do you get blurry shots? Do you often have to take multiple shots to get a sharp one?

Just wondering about your experiences.

[Maxima]

I'm having this debate as well, either the f4 or the f2.8 IS, I just caught the L virus, thanks to all you very contagious people. I better stay away from you all from now on. Maybe, my wife will let me sleep in our room for a change. hehehe I guess camera gear isn't so bad, just a little lumpy.

Hand holding the lens isn't a problem as long as you have sufficient light to get a high enough shutter speed, or bump up the ISO. I've heard the f4 is ideal for outdoors, however indoors you may want to reconsider, or use a flash.

[Jwreich]

I just purchased a used F4L version. I can say that at 1/2500 shutter, I get limited blur. If I was shooting anything with "nromal" shutter speeds (1/125 - 1/60) at 200mm I would need a tripod to keep it still.

I would say if you can shoot and ANT with a BB gun at 10 feet, then you can hold this lens steady in low light. Regarding the IS, not only did it not fit into my budget, but I also read several reviews of professionls returning the IS version for the non-IS version. The reason given was the IS made it slower by a stop or two.

I don't know if this is true or not as I couldn't afford to look at the lens, much less own one.

--

[lordjim]

Try to use the rule of thumb: shutter speed >= 1/(focal lens*1.6) for non moving subject and feel free to adjust ISO if you do not have enough light, you will see that your pictures will become a lot sharper. If not, then there may be a problem with your lens.

[Tdragone]

I agree with Lordjim on this one.


I have the 70-200 F4 and I love it. I get shots down to 250 with no blur most of the time (Don't go to starbucks before going out shooting). Under 1/250 I get some good shots; but some due to my hand shake and just like guns; trigger jerk.

I also have a friends 100-400 IS L right now; and with that lens @ 1-300 mm I feel I don't need IS; but @ 400mm I definitely see a difference! Even 1/800 sometimes has camera shake when I turn IS off.

So; if you have fairly steady hands; for a 200 I don't think IS is necessary; anything over 200mm; personally I'd go for the IS versions.

Hope it helps.

-Tom D

[gasrocks]

It does depend on what/where you are shooting. I think the 2.8 and IS people are doing a lot of indoors work. Outdoors, a monopod gives me an extra shutter speed or two (sometimes 3) so the f/4 is dandy - so small and lightweight. Get the f/4 - see if it works for you. If you really find too many times where the 2.8 or IS would have saved you - you can rationalize the extra $ later. No problem selling the f/4.

[ssim]

, but I also read several reviews of professionls returning the IS version for the non-IS version. The reason given was the IS made it slower by a stop or two.

I don't know if this is true or not as I couldn't afford to look at the lens, much less own one.

--

It is still an f4 lens whether IS is turned on or not. If you add the 1.4TC, then you lose a stop or two with the 2.0TC.

I have the 2.8 versioin of this lens and quite honestly can say that I don't use it much below f4 most of the time. There are those occaisions when the 2.8 is of value though.

Depending on the subject (ie. is it moving) I have very acceptable images at fairly low shutter speeds. Alot of time a tripod is just not practical, again given the subject matter.

Whether or not you can get good images at lower shutter speeds is really dependant upon how steady a hand you have.

[OceanView]

Thanks for all the replies,

I think there really is no way to determine this until I get my hands on one and use it for awhile.
If I can hold it steady enough, I will keep it, if not, I hope that I can find a retailer or E-tailer that will allow me to exchange it for the other.

Any good recommendations in Southern California?

[I Simonius]

I am thinking about buying this lens or the IS version.
Most people seem to be happy with the price and functionality of the F4.

My question is this.
When you are fully extended (200mm) and shoot while holding, how often do you get blurry shots? Do you often have to take multiple shots to get a sharp one?

Just wondering about your experiences.

Simple answer - I don't get blurry shots, I never take multiple shots ( to get a sharp one) But I never try to shoot below 250. Good technique at 250 will give you good pics, under 250 will give you blurry shots handheld. Long end of lens braced against a wall or bean bag etc you can get away with 125 sec

I have the f4 and I find it's best simply not to take it out unless the light is good.
@the 200 end (where I shoot most of the time with it) it needs 250 at least, 500 is better. In good light that only gives you a couple of stops to play with, but it's plenty, in bad light it's really not worth trying to use it.

I have just bought the 85f1.8 for low light portraits etc. as a huge white zoom is not only overkill for those situations, but there's the speed indoors

If I had the buying decision knowing then what I knew now, my choice wouldn't be between the non IS and IS, it would be betwen the IS and the 200 prime, or the 70-200 v the 100-400. IF I had the money, I would buy instead, the 85 + 135 primes, and the 100-400 IS. I wouldn't get the 200 prime as you run into the same problems with the 1.6 crop cameras, it becomes a 280 lens which is generalyl too long to hand hold except in good light ( not a lot of that on average over here). The 70-200 IS is just too bulky for it's FL for my liking.

Having played with the 100-400 IS I would recommend the IS version of ANYTHING, if you can afford it, and have big strong arm muscles. ;) (although on other boards there has been a lot of complaints about the IS not working)

Having said the above the 70-200f4 is VERY sharp and CHEAP and LIGHT, so if your technique is good you can save a lot of money and sore arms by getting the f4

[michael.luczkow]

it's all about the money....

if you get the 4. you won't regret it. if you get the 2.8 you wont regret it. i see have the 4 and i see it as a 2-3 year lens. I figure in 3 years i'll be making a lot more money so i will stop holding out on the glass i buy and start putting down some cash for lenses that i'll have for a long long time.

so like i said, honestly the biggest factor (i think) is your financial situation and how forgiving your spouse is when it comes to dents in the visa. :-)

[mdr]

I got the f4, and use it generally at 1/250 without any blurring problems. It is vital to have your left hand under the lens, as holding the body with both hands will definitely result in camera shake.

Even if I get the f2.8 in the future, I would not sell the f4, as it is a wonderful travel lens due to it's weight.

[lancea]

I agree with your final point mdr. The 2.8 is so much heavier (and the IS more so). I'd imagine you're more likely to need IS with the 2.8 simply because it will be tiring to hold steady. For me, the f/4 is the right choice.

[I Simonius]

I agree with your final point mdr. The 2.8 is so much heavier (and the IS more so). I'd imagine you're more likely to need IS with the 2.8 simply because it will be tiring to hold steady. For me, the f/4 is the right choice.

I can't see me ever needing the 2.8 but I might like the IS on a 70-200-

What I would prefer, and can wait for as I don't really NEEED a long lens, is a 200-400 IS lens with the sharpness the 70-200.

Don't want a 200 -500 as it would have to be just that little bit too big, and can't afford DO lenses!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

As long as it's outdoors I rarely ever get blurred shots at 200mm. When shot at 1/1000 or higher I find it nearly impossible to get blurry shots hand held. They always come out WICKED sharp! Although if you ever intend on using this f/4L lens at an indoor sports event, your in trouble. The f/2.8 is necessary for that and the IS will help as well.

Last night I shot my first indoor soccer game using settings f/4, ISO 1600, EC -2/3, I could only obtain max shutter speeds between 1/60th to 1/100th. Terrible, just, terrible. Got some decent shots, but they're all either soft, or have motion blurr.

Another thing is the f/2.8 apeture will allow the lens to AF faster and more accurately in any given situation. It'll be most noticable in low light, but in addition to that if your shooting with a 20D there's an advanced auto focusing system on that camera that is only activated when used with a f/2.8 or faster lens.

So, there are a lot of advantages to the IS version, but at $1,700.00 that's expected. Before shooting an indoor soccer game, I was completely happy with my f/4L version. Great lens, great price, just not made for low light.

Hope that helps.... good luck with your purchase!