RayinAlaska wrote in post #16599810
The f/4 without IS is a wonderful lens, and very lightweight. My answer to the OP is "no."
Most of my photography takes place during the day with plenty of daylight, so I don't miss IS. Also, IS is another thing to weaken the camera's battery during cold weather photography.
What did Canon camera users did with their 70-200 f/4 without IS? And now with cameras that can handle higher ISO speed while controlling digital noise to a greater degree, the old lenses still work as well as ever. Yes, IS give you an edge, but with an increase in weight, and cost. If you can afford both, go for it.
I'm in the same boat here. I use my 70-200 F4L as my zoom, as otherwise, I roll with a prime attached for my main lens (35mm). I've not really noticed the need for IS on my 70-200, but that's mostly due to how I use it. I keep my shutter speed high, and ISO up a touch to keep it there. I generally meter the scene and go full manual and set it. Otherwise, I like using Tv mode with this particular lens for walk around if I know I need the reach, with auto ISO and a set limiter (I don't like to go above 1600 on my camera).
But I got this lens for about $400. If I had extra money just laying around, I'd love to have the technically better lenses, like the IS version, and definitely would want the latest F2.8L version, just for the aperture alone. But I just can't justify the cost difference. The old 70-200 F4L is just a silly value at this point, it's so inexpensive for it's quality. And it's fairly light weight so I can carry it around when birding here in Florida without feeling like I'm holding a bowling ball.
If someone gave me $1500, I'd trade up to the F2.8L IS. But then again, if someone gave me that money, I'd more likely just buy the 100-400mm F5.6L that I crave.