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 11 Jan 2014 (Saturday) 19:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Would I need IS in a 70-200 F4

 
Ev0d3vil
Member
87 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Singapore
     
Jan 11, 2014 19:24 |  #1

Price wise, it's way cheaper and now that I'm going flash setup, I'm afraid I may burst my budget so I may go this path, how does IS make a difference? What if the light is good?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,464 posts
Gallery: 1790 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11253
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:03 |  #2

Heya,

Comes down to preference. I have the 70-200 F4L without IS. I don't seem to miss it, as I use flash, or I use it in good light. I also use it to shoot the moon and other stuff, so I'm regularly at the 200mm end of the barrel.

IS is helpful if you need the stops. But newer IS is useful. Older IS, well, it's there, but frankly isn't all that great. I would look specifically at what generation of IS the lens has, when looking at an older L lens with IS. It may not be worth your while to get, for example, a 2ish stop IS. So just look at the lens charts for what generation and how many stops the IS essentially handles.

I find that generally speaking, good technique makes IS not needed. Photographers didn't have IS back in the day and landed crisp shots.

IS makes a difference if your shutter speed is low. At 200mm, if your shutter speed is less than 1/200s, you might get some shake which results in a touch of blur that makes it look a tad out of focus. If you're shooting faster than that, you probably won't notice anything from IS. If you're shooting around that area, at 200mm, IS can be helpful, because it grabs those last few stops to let you dip just under 1/200s and survive a little shake.

When shooting with my 70-200 F4L, I tend to use M or Tv and shoot at 1/200s and higher with auto ISO (limited to 1600 so that it doesn't get ultra grainy and ugly). I haven't noticed a need for IS for me yet.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:12 |  #3

If you're not using a tripod, I would absolutely get a 70-200 f/4 or similar *with* IS, especially on a crop body. I found that at 200mm with my 70-200 f/4L non-IS I needed a shutter of 1/320 or faster to get consistently sharp photos handheld. In low light, getting that fast of a shutter speed at f/4 can be difficult without using ISO 1600 or higher, which sacrifices image quality. If you're shooting sports or at midday, it will be much easier to achieve shutter speeds of 1/500 or so, negating the IS advantage.


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
2,466 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 673
Joined Aug 2006
Location: West Tennessee, USA
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:22 |  #4

The IS version is a newer release (2006 vs. 1999) and has better optics. The IS version is one of Canon's sharpest lens.


Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ev0d3vil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
87 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Singapore
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:34 |  #5

Guess I've to put off my flash budget then hah. Not many people love having a flash shine in their face as I found out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Motor ­ On
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Likes: 50
Joined Feb 2007
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:35 |  #6

What's your subject matter? What body do you use? I've rarely felt the need for IS, as my limiting factor is often what is needed to freeze action and not what is needed to hold steady. With a 5D3 I can keep 1/2000th and a reasonable ISO @f4 for indoor basketball, IS isn't going to big deal with those types of situations, if you're looking at dragging the shutter with the flash or shooting at sunset without a flash or doing lots of panning I could see the wanting of IS to make those situations more forgiving.


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ev0d3vil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
87 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Singapore
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:54 |  #7

Indoor with ambient light? Not sports. Just people in their natural surroundings.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChinaVol
Member
Avatar
62 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tn.
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:57 |  #8

I think I get better results with the 4.0 without stabilization than the 2.8 with stabilization outdoors. The 4.0 just seems sharper. I don't miss the stabilization.


MY Feedback
https://photography-on-the.net ...=17163490&postcount​=44405
https://photography-on-the.net ...=16638975&postcount​=42498
[URL="http://photograp​hy-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?p=17123810#post​17123810"][URL]http://​photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?p=17123810[URL=​"https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?p=16732660&high​light=buyer+chinavol#p​ost16732660"]http://ph​otography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?p=16732660&high​light=buyer+chinavol#p​ost16732660

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,946 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 1258
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jan 11, 2014 20:58 |  #9

the 70-200 F4 IS is A1.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
Avatar
4,487 posts
Gallery: 696 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 6757
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
     
Jan 12, 2014 07:36 as a reply to  @ windpig's post |  #10

To answer the question for me, yes.


5D Mark IV~100-400L II IS~16-35 f4L IS ~Zeiss 25mm f2~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~ Sigma 24-105 Art~Rokinon 14mm 2.8~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,138 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Jan 12, 2014 08:43 |  #11

If you can swing the f/4 L IS, grab it. Like said previously, one of Canon's sharpest, which I agree. You will not regret it. Remember, with the 70-200 f/4 L IS, you can always turn IS Off.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jan 12, 2014 09:46 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

bob_r wrote in post #16597936 (external link)
The IS version is a newer release (2006 vs. 1999) and has better optics. The IS version is one of Canon's sharpest lens.

Exactly right. The IS version is much better optically...as well as having IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snow001
Senior Member
Avatar
328 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jan 12, 2014 10:34 |  #13

IMHO waiting a bit until you come up with the budget is worth it. 5 years ago i bought the non IS version. Had i known back then what I know now, i should have bought the iS version instead. It comes in handy especially for those hand held shots when you do not want to or can't use a tripod or monopod.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jan 12, 2014 11:48 |  #14

I shot for 20 years without IS.... And now I've shot another 12 years with IS on some lenses, currently about a half dozen.

Even on the earliest lenses with IS (28-135 and 300/4 I use were among the very first), it's effective and helpful.

In addition to allowing you to use somewhat slower shutter speeds handheld, IS steadies the image in the viewfinder, and I've heard it theorized helps AF perform more accurately.

And previous posts are correct.... the 70-200/4 IS is one of the sharpest zooms Canon has made. The earlier 70-200/4 non-IS is really decent too, but not as good optically. The 70-200/4 IS closely rivals the best: the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II.

If at all possible, get the 70-200/4 with IS. I bought a lightly used one about a year ago for a nice discount. I also use the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I".


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,373 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4399
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jan 12, 2014 12:06 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #15

I wouldn't be without IS on my 70-200, but my hands aren't all that steady anymore. I use IS regardless of shutter speed.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

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

2,077 views & 0 likes for this thread
Would I need IS in a 70-200 F4
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 dsk26894
1172 guests, 322 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.