Would I need IS in a 70-200 F4

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?

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,

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

the 70-200 F4 IS is A1.

To answer the question for me, yes.

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.

bob_r wrote in post #16597936
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.

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.

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".

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.