IS or not IS

I've been thinking of getting a 70-200 f4
Read loads of reviews and comments about both but still unsure which to go for , from what I've read it seems that the IS models are more likely to cause problems in the future with possible faults. ( Seen many IS for sale as faulty but not a non IS ) is the weather sealing worth the extra I don't usually go out in bad weather.

So asking those who have the experience I don't have which would you choose?

a. A mint non IS
b. More expensive IS

The lense would be for me a walk around on my 5d3.

didgit wrote in post #19500648
I've been thinking of getting a 70-200 f4
Read loads of reviews and comments about both but still unsure which to go for , from what I've read it seems that the IS models are more likely to cause problems in the future with possible faults. ( Seen many IS for sale as faulty but not a non IS ) is the weather sealing worth the extra I don't usually go out in bad weather.

So asking those who have the experience I don't have which would you choose?

a. A mint non IS
b. More expensive IS

The lense would be for me a walk around on my 5d3.

I bought my 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1 in 2009 for my then 40D. At that time there were rumors of a new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II on the horizon. The 70-200 f/4 L IS was newly introduced then and was sharper and better color and contrast to the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Version 1. With IS and a smaller lighter form this lens beat both the f/2.8 L IS and the Non IS f/4. Great lens.
This lens lived on my new 7D as well until 2011 January as I bought the newly introduced 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
For the next few years the f/4 L IS as at in the corner as the new Big Brother saw the light of day.
In 2013 bought a 5D Mark III and a year later a second. As I travel to Europe, I like to walk around with two gripped bodies and a 16-35 f/4 L IS and a 70-200 on the other.
After returning from Italy in 2016, my body was telling me to lighten the load. Remembering a conversation in 2013 with a Gentleman while shooting outside of “Our Lady Cathedral” in Dresden, Germany, he noticed I was shooting with the Big Boy f/2.8 L IS. He said he leaves that one home and uses his f/4 L IS for travel and walk around, why lug around all that weight……. Hmmmmm. Next trip to Europe i followed his advice.
For Iceland in 2016, I forced myself to bring the old faithful, smaller lighter f/4 L IS. Boy what took me so long. My body thanked me and the images did not suffer one bit.
Since then the f/4 L IS was my go to.
In 2019, I did purchase the the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. Since it was a nice upgrade and closely matched the newer 16-35 f/4 L IS and the 24-70 f/4 L IS in sharpness, color and contrast. I decided to treat myself. However I still have my old trusty friend the 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1 in the other room. Why? It’s so good still to this day 14 years later. It’s family. Plus it’s a great back up if the other needs service. It’s still sooooooo gooood.
Another thing that gets overlooked is that IS allows you to achieve focus more reliably as the image is stabilized in the View finder. The Bird, Eagle is not jumping up and down as in the viewfinder while trying to achieve focus, leading to out of focus images. Also I shoot 3 bracketed images in Older Cathedrals. IS allows the +2 image with a two stop slower shutter speed of say 1/10” to be razor sharp Hand Held. No tripods are allowed in most.
To this day, my Greek Trilogy, the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II are still going strong.
The extra cash for the IS is certainly a no brainer for me.
I wholeheartedly recommend the 70-200 f/4 L IS to you.

Thank you for taking the time to reply,
You have given me more to think about and probably save for .

Another thing to think about with the IS lens. If the IS breaks, you still have a very nice non-IS lens.

I have had the 70-200 f/4 L V1 non IS since it first came out, first on my Rebel XT and now on my Eos R. I've used it for portraits, flowers, and in the beginning, with a TC for birds. It's simply a fabulous lens for the money. I have other lenses with IS, but have never missed having it on this lens.

I can second everything Nick5 has said about this lens - I have never had the f2.8, so can't attest to a comparison, but I sure don't need the extra weight.

If your choice is between the f4 variants, definitely go with the f4is. It's a much sharper lens than the non is version. It wasn't just adding IS but a total redesign and it was canons sharpest zoom until the 2.8 is II came along.

Get the latest version of the 70-200 F/4 L IS. The version ii. Outstanding images. Keep the IS turned off if you want and maybe it will never wear out and throw a fault. With nicely fast shutter speeds you can have the IS off anyway.

I bought the EF 70-200 f/4 IS version 1 soon after it was released, and it was a terrific lens. I finally sold it last year as part of my slow transition to all mirrorless, but the lens never gave me any problems during the time I owned it and always produced great images. It also worked very well with a 1.4x TC. I have considered picking up the RF version, but I don't seem to use this focal range as much as I used to (and no longer need the constant f/4 max aperture) -- I either need wider or longer. So, a RF 24-105L f/4 + RF 100-400 combo suits my needs better now.

The IS is a great combo with the MK3, I've used it with fantastic results in clarity, color, and bokeh. I would warn that it is noisy (audibly) and may be particularly unsuitable for video.

Thank you all for your help, I don't know why I let it get into my head so much about faults, I guess it's from trawling eBay and seeing so many for sale as spares.
I do have an IS lens and love it (100-400) I've obviously just got to put it out of my mind and wait and get the best I can when I can.

This is my opinion for IS v/s Non IS glass

If you shoot inside in low light- Absolutly 100% you will need IS lens most of the time. With few exceptions you will be above 1/125 to get the shot.....Im extremely steady and I have missed many at 1/100, even with a flash.


If you shoot outside then the Non IS primes and zooms are fantastic. I have a 15 yr old 70-200 F4 no IS. Its so sharp. Im always above 1/400 when outside and it never misses. Typically I will bump my ISO to 800 and I land at 1/2000 and above all day long

I had IS for years. Not a problem as long as I was aware it is not is .
Optics are true L.
It also works without limitations with cheap x2 Vivitar Series 1 Teleconverter.

I sold this lens and replaced with K-3 (IBIS) and Pentax 50-200.

Is broken IS a common issue? I have very rarely ever seen a lens advertised with bad IS. A friend tells me it's pretty common with older Nikon lenses but when I see nonfunctioning Canon lenses sold "for parts" it's usually the AF and not the IS. And even then it's not common.

The IS unit in my 100Macro L/IS went out and I sent it in to get replaced, they commented that it's recommended to turn the IS off before dismounting the lens. I never thought about it and do so whenever using a lens with the feature.

Yes, I mentioned in another thread that this had recently come to my attention. The R7 keeps the IS active for a long time and if I just take the 70-200 or 300 off I can actually see the IS element wobbling around through the mount. Turning the IS or the camera off will park the IS element solidly. The 7D2 only runs the IS for a second or two once the shutter button is released, so I think it parks quickly but I'm getting myself in the habit of making sure the IS is off before I remove those lenses regardless of which body I'm using.