70-200 question

I am planning to buy a 70-200 L f4 shortly. The price of the IS version is around twice that of the non-IS one. I can live without the iS, but am wondering if the IQ is similar with both lenses. Are they both equally sharp? I wouyld appreciate any comments from anyone who has used both.

the f/4 nonIS is the second sharpest of all the 70-200 lens. Only bested by the mkII

From what I've read, i thought 2.8 II > 4 IS > 4 > 2.8 IS > 2.8 in terms of sharpness.

I too am interested in this. I will be renting one in two days for a graduation. Unfortunately I won't have anything to compare it to.

But according to the-digital-picture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The 4 IS is sharper in the corners, but center sharpness is almost the same.

When nitpicking(MTF, ISO charts), there are minor differences( the IS has rounded aperture blades, etc.), but in real life shooting... you won't see any difference( unless you get motion-blur from lower shutter speeds, with the non-IS).

The f4L is a fantastic lens. I've used all of the 70-200's and really only the mkII stands out as being noticeably superior in real world use.

the general consensus seems to be that the order of sharpness wide open for Canon Ls in this range are (from sharpest to least sharp):

70-200 2.8 IS II > 70-200 4 IS > 70-200 2.8 > 70-200 2.8 IS > 70-200 4

Keep in mind this is wide open, which means that stopped down to f4, the 70-200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS (original) are probably similar to, if not sharper than, the 4 IS

sol95 wrote in post #14565130
the general consensus seems to be that the order of sharpness wide open for Canon Ls in this range are (from sharpest to least sharp):

70-200 2.8 IS II > 70-200 4 IS > 70-200 2.8 > 70-200 2.8 IS > 70-200 4

Keep in mind this is wide open, which means that stopped down to f4, the 70-200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS (original) are probably similar to, if not sharper than, the 4 IS

I have owned 3 of these 5 lenses, and wide open I tend to agree with the others.
70-200 2.8 IS II > 70-200 4 IS >> 70-200 2.8 IS
The 4IS was an incredible lens, however, I needed the 2.8 for indoor sports. Someday, I will get the 4IS again.

You may want to rethink the "IS" or "not to IS" question. The IS in both the 4IS and the 2.8ISII are incredible. On your 7D at 200mm, you will need a shutter speed of at least 1/320 (give or take) to prevent shaking when handheld. That is pretty fast for quite a bit of photography. I will probably never have a non-IS lens above maybe 85mm. I have the 85/1.8 and there are times in low light when I which it had IS as well.

Good luck in your lens search!

I would have to agree with Mr B. I had the 70-200 nonIS. You won't have any qualms with IQ. But not having IS is when I really felt limited more indoors. When you are at the longer FLs, you're gonna find yourself having to really watch your technique and shutter speeds...which in my case, meant I was struggling more than I wanted to get some shots. Outdoors though? The nonIS version is perfectly fine.

Pixels wrote in post #14564839
I am planning to buy a 70-200 L f4 shortly. The price of the IS version is around twice that of the non-IS one. I can live without the iS, but am wondering if the IQ is similar with both lenses. Are they both equally sharp? I wouyld appreciate any comments from anyone who has used both.

Well I got by without IS and without digital bodies back in my film days, but I wouldn't want to go back to those days. I would get by with a used 55-250 until the funds are in order for at least the f4.0 IS. IQ is better on the IS version, but the f4 non IS is no slouch though.

All of the 70-200 L's are sharp. I'd choose based on need, or budget, not IQ.

Thanks to all for your comments on the 70-200 L options question.
I am mulling over the pros and cons of the two f4 models - even though I have a fairly steady hand am leaning towards the IS option - most of my shots are hand held.

I've owned both the IS and non-IS f4 models, I stuck with the non-IS; optics are near identical, only real differences are IS and weather sealing, neither of which I am willing to pay double the price for.

FWIW, there are several 70-200 f4 non is lenses for less than $600 in the sale section here. (I think one was in the $500 range) That is a huge difference in price from even used on Amazon, and the new price, of course. You could always pick up one of the cheap ones, use it for a few months and then sell it for what you paid for it. Or keep it if you like it.

I own the 70-200L 4L non IS.. i really like the quality of the lens, but find you really do need to use a tripod with it unless you got a real steady hand ..

I would love love love to have the 70-200L 2.8 but its not in the cards for me...