Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Jun 2013 (Saturday) 07:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Should I pull the trigger on the 70-200 f4 non is?

 
ChuckingFluff
Goldmember
Avatar
1,391 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Canada Eh!
     
Jun 17, 2013 16:07 |  #31

Loved that lens but it didn't bounce too well off of the road. I used it 99% of the time outside in good light and had no issues not having IS. I upgraded to the f2.8L IS and I can't remember the last time I took it off of the camera. There's pros and cons to both




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jkdjedi
Senior Member
Avatar
341 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jun 2013
Location: California
     
Jun 17, 2013 16:11 |  #32

flickserve wrote in post #16037540 (external link)
This and have a monopod at hand as well.

You diffidently need a monopod with the non IS f/4 lens. HAve this and it is exceptional during the day. Did some night shots for the first time this past week and sorely wished I had a faster lens. a few pics from the night shots (was afraid to try ISO6400 on my 7d)

Canon 70-200 f/4 shot @ 1/60 ISO3200 f/4

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

http://www.fernandezim​ages.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ian_socool
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,826 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 140
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Brooklyn NY
     
Jun 17, 2013 16:59 |  #33

jkdjedi wrote in post #16039826 (external link)
You diffidently need a monopod with the non IS f/4 lens. HAve this and it is exceptional during the day. Did some night shots for the first time this past week and sorely wished I had a faster lens. a few pics from the night shots (was afraid to try ISO6400 on my 7d)

Canon 70-200 f/4 shot @ 1/60 ISO3200 f/4
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Not that bad at 6400


70D, 80D, SL1, Sigma 10-20 3.5, Σ30mm 1.4, 40mm 2.8 Pancake Σ70mm 2.8 EX DG Macro, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Σ85 1.4, Σ50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, Godox AD 200 X's 2, 430EX II X's 2, Yongnuo YN-560II X's 2, Cowboy Studio wireless flash triggers X4.Ian_socool FlickR (external link) Facebook fanpage (external link) http://ianlynphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
reappear
Member
Avatar
161 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Southern Finland
     
Jun 18, 2013 03:22 |  #34

Interesting topic, could be because I'm planning to buy the same lens.

I've had 55-250 IS and 70-210 USM (oldie), and while I liked the 55-250 IS, something was missing. The old 70-210 USM was a great lens. A bit soft on on the edges, but better IQ than 55-250 IS. I also didn't miss any shots without the IS. I just shot with the tool I had. I'm not ready to invest in 70-200 f4 IS yet, but if my hands start to shake for some reason, I might have to :)

With the experience that I've had with those lenses, I think a second hand non-IS f4 will be just right for me. I've heard it's as sharp as the IS version, and I do have a monopod :)

Btw. I would've shot the shots above a bit darker, grass wouldn't need to be so bright IMO. 1/120 would've been just fine I think.


big.pic.fi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Blubayou
Senior Member
366 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
     
Jun 18, 2013 09:43 |  #35

ian_socool wrote in post #16039988 (external link)
Not that bad at 6400

He was afraid of 6400, those are at 3200

reappear wrote in post #16041298 (external link)
Btw. I would've shot the shots above a bit darker, grass wouldn't need to be so bright IMO. 1/120 would've been just fine I think.

I was thinking the same thing.

I have the 70-200 MKII and the F4 non-is. The MKII is just awesome, but the F4 non-is certainly holds its own during the day. I pick it up when I want to travel light or know I won't need slow shutter speeds. A monopod would help at times, but I would just take the mkII if I knew light would get low.

I'd recommend holding out for a 50-150 OS sigma if you can find one. I've seen a few sell recently for $615 - $700. If 150mm is long enough, that would be a lot of lens for the price.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
klimraamkosie
Senior Member
Avatar
900 posts
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jun 18, 2013 10:22 |  #36

reappear wrote in post #16041298 (external link)
Btw. I would've shot the shots above a bit darker, grass wouldn't need to be so bright IMO. 1/120 would've been just fine I think.

Exposing for a dark shirt might cause this.


Gear
500px (external link)
Feedback: Bought - Thinktank UD50. Sold - Canon 24-75.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Corbeau
Senior Member
Avatar
377 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Great White North
     
Jun 18, 2013 11:38 |  #37

Mine is the non-IS, for which I paid $550 used, but in 9+ condition. Might sell it for the same price once I find a f/4 IS that's just as nice... (BTW, difficult to justify the 2.8 IS Mk II at this point. But that doesn't make me stop lusting after it...)


Look and think before opening the shutter. The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera. -- Yousuf Karsh

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfect_10
Goldmember
Avatar
1,998 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2004
Location: An Ex Brit living in Alberta, Canada
     
Jun 18, 2013 12:35 |  #38

The F stops here wrote in post #16034939 (external link)
I have the non IS version and love it to death, ... i got it for $500 almost brand new in perfect condition with all accessories, ... Save for the IS.

I grabbed my f/4 IS for $800 in the same condition.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16035759 (external link)
I believe 70-200 f4 non-IS is just the right lens to upgrade from 55-250. ...

The logical upgrade is the f/4 IS .. because of the IS ;)

Corbeau wrote in post #16042276 (external link)
Mine is the non-IS, for which I paid $550 used, but in 9+ condition. Might sell it for the same price once I find a f/4 IS that's just as nice... (BTW, difficult to justify the 2.8 IS Mk II at this point. But that doesn't make me stop lusting after it...)

I have the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS mk2, and I prefer to lug around the f/4 because of the weight and bulk.

I had the f/4 non IS before the f/2.8 IS's & f/4 IS .. I much prefer the IS version for the extra keepers I get from it.


My Gear List  :p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
katiedaddy
Member
179 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jun 18, 2013 14:32 |  #39

I recently purchased 70-200 f4 non-is and I found myself reaching for this one over 200mm f2.8L. I took some pictures during daylight and pictures came out pretty amazing although I probably wouldn't use this lens under low light. I am planning on keeping this one for now although I am interested to see if I can really see big difference with IS version.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
L.J.G.
"Not brigth enough"
Avatar
10,463 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Jul 2010
Location: ɹǝpun uʍop
     
Jun 20, 2013 14:57 |  #40

ian_socool wrote in post #16033096 (external link)
Thats my concern, the keeper rate. I also looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and that is my concern there as well. The 55-250 while it is the best in it's class I cant take the slow focus, uuuugh

Like everybody I started out with the 55-250. It amazed me how good it was. IQ was up there with lenses that cost 2 and 3 times as much. I always swore no matter what I'd never sell it. Then along came the 70-200 f/4 IS. I agonised over this purchase, I wanted the f/2.8 IS II, but I also wanted a travel lens and the f/2.8 was simply too big and heavy for my needs. The first thing I found was the f/4 IS lens blew the 55-250 right out of the water! It is so fast to get accurate focus it tears your socks off. It never misses and for the speed it achieves focus that in itself is amazing. If I have a stuffed shot, it is because I have stuffed it, not the lens. I have no doubt the non IS version is just about as good, but for IQ the IS verison is second only to the f/2.8 IS II. The IS is also very good, I have had handheld shots at slow shutter speeds turn out spot on and when I realise how slow the shutter speed is I am amazed they even turned out at all. The only thing I would pick with this lens is the IS is noisy, you can clearly hear it but you just get used to it. My recommendation would be get the non IS if you can't afford the IS version, but if you can stretch the budget to get the IS version that would be the best way to go.


Lloyd
Never make the same mistake twice, there are so many new ones, try a different one each day
Gear Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,140 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 476
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Jun 20, 2013 16:01 |  #41

I have to admit I distrust IS in general: I'd use IS lenses for snapshots, but not for serious photography (stuff I sell or post on flickr). For anything serious I always use a tripod. Even a cheapest tripod from walmart will do a better job than IS. (I am not talking about super-tele here.)

So my choice of non-IS 70-200 f4 was easy: twice cheaper than the IS version, and the fact that I'd have to pay another 500$ for a feature I won't use for serious stuff.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,427 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 3917
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Jun 20, 2013 16:08 |  #42

I'm the exact opposite. I shoot for pleasure, not for a living, and if I have a feature that would get rid of or at least drastically reduce my need for a tripod, that's worth it in my book.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ian_socool
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,826 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 140
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Brooklyn NY
     
Jun 21, 2013 19:56 |  #43

Well, I just bought a 100mm f2 for theater and sports. I am such a sucker.


70D, 80D, SL1, Sigma 10-20 3.5, Σ30mm 1.4, 40mm 2.8 Pancake Σ70mm 2.8 EX DG Macro, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Σ85 1.4, Σ50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, Godox AD 200 X's 2, 430EX II X's 2, Yongnuo YN-560II X's 2, Cowboy Studio wireless flash triggers X4.Ian_socool FlickR (external link) Facebook fanpage (external link) http://ianlynphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,526 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jun 22, 2013 06:57 |  #44

ian_socool wrote in post #16053272 (external link)
Well, I just bought a 100mm f2 for theater and sports. I am such a sucker.

That's a GREAT choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tivoboy
Member
170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2009
     
Jun 22, 2013 09:43 |  #45

For the $$ this is a great lens, the non-Is. Yes, in low light and if one has a problem hand holding having the IS IS going to yield more keepers..that said, out doors, in reasonable light or with a quality body that can handle 2400-6400 well, this lens is no problem..

AND, the nice thing is being able to get great sharpness with less carried weight. The lower weight actually makes HAND HOLDING easier, now granted the difference between this and the IS f/4 are pretty low, but compared to the 2.8 non or with IS, the weight difference CAN make a difference.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,837 views & 0 likes for this thread
Should I pull the trigger on the 70-200 f4 non is?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Nidzza2
1110 guests, 328 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.