Canon 70-200 f/4L IS v non IS

Hey guys, so I am going to be purchasing the canon 70-200 lens very soon, and I am wondering, is the IS really worth it?

Pretty much the same specs between the two, apart from the IS...and almost $300 in price haha
Has anyone used either of these lenses? and if so is there a need for the IS?

I've used both, and I kept the non-IS, because IQ is virtually identical, and IS to me is not worth double the price (not sure about prices in australia, but elsewhere the IS costs twice the amount the non-IS does).

Personally I don't need IS, its handy when I have it, but I'm not going to pay as much as a good tripod for it on one lens when there are few other benefits that come with the inflated price.

For me, "When in doubt......IS".
This is one of Canon's best lenses for sharpness and ease of use. The Image Stabilzation really shines on this lens. You can always turn off IS, but you can't turn it on if you don't have it.

I am well past 50. I need IS to get to 1/FL. It is worth it to me at 200mm and longer. I wish the IS on the 100-400 were a stop or so better!

If it were a choice between a 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 IS... but since it's f/4 IS vs. non, so definitely go for the IS version, the f/4 aperture is really going to need it, esp. at 200mm. The great thing about the plain 70-200 f/4 is that it's Canon's cheapest L-series lens, a super choice if you're totally broke, but absolutely need something with a red ring on it.

I had both and now I have the 2.8 sigma OS version. I never really needed the IS but I wanted it for videoing. Yes I've been able to get some nice shots with the IS but the canon I was never really able to get below 1/60 reliably enough vs. the sigma I can get down to 1/10 easily

It's hard to argue with somebody that has had both and then opts for one or the other. All I'll have to say is that IS is well worth the extra $'s for me and that the 70-200 F4IS is an outstanding lens.

I had the f/4 non-IS for six months. Traded it in for the f/2.8 IS.
The IS can be very helpful under lower light conditions. (the 2.8 helped too)

Like Skul, I started with the f4 non IS and got some great photos with it outdoors, however I eventually sold it and got the 2.8 IS MkI which was much better. The IS was a very welcome addition as was the extra stop, but it wasn't as sharp as the f4 wide open. When stopped down to f3.5 it was a lot better though. I recently sold the MkI to put the money towards a MkII and the MkII blows the rest away. The MkII is sharper at f2.8 than the MkI was at f4 and the IS is fantastic as well. It's worth starting with the f4 if you are planning to upgrade at all because the price of the f4 doesn't seem to be going any lower than it is already and is great to start with.

Got the non IS and keep for almost a month before sending it back. No question......spend the extra cash and get the IS model. It is much more usful in lower light conditions.

I don't know the price differential for IS in Australia, but in the USA it is typically about $500 more for IS (except in lower end consumer lenses like the 18-55 vs. 18-55 IS) For $500 more, it certainly is well worth it. I owned the 70-200 f/4L before the IS lens came out, then bought the 70-200 f/4L IS.

The IS really helps with the hand holdability of the 70-200 in lower light. Consider that on APS-C the usual lower shutter speed for hand holding 200mm is 1/320. Being able to hand hold 200mm to 1/80 (or even 1/40) is really valuable, especially if your subject is not moving that rapidly or continuously.

Definitely the IS, for me that is. I have handheld F4L IS to 1/20 at 200mm. I had slight movement but IS took care of that and the images turned out sharp. It gives you an additional stop just because you can drop the shutter speed to 1/40 or 1/20.

IS is a huge thing, I can go down to 1/30 at 200 on a crop body, makes it usable before sunset for out door， or low light portrait.

IS? Yes. I find it almost indispensible. Unless you shoot a lot of fast moving subjects, the f4 IS is one of the best deals going.

Another advantage to the IS version is if you do like I did and add a 1.4x II teleconverter. Now you are talking a 280mm at the far end and handolding that without IS is going to be a bit dicey.

I have a nice tripod, but I really don't use it that often. I prefer to handhold, so my long lenses need IS. Even with my 17-55 the IS is useful. I've taken photos at 1/13 second, zoomed to 35mm, handheld with perfect sharpness.

The specs are NOT the same between the 2. Check out the photozone.de reviews on each. The IS version has the better IQ.