Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens

I have the non IS version and falling out of love with it.....lack of IS because I shoot handheld is this really that much better and what about cloudy days and nights?

I never shot with the non-IS so I can't compare but the IS has been helpful for me. I don't usually use my 70-200 at night so I can't speak to that but my best shot was at 1/60 at 200MM handheld, tack sharp. I'm pleased with that. I'm sure others have gotten even lower SS.

Edit: Disclaimer, I wasn't shooting people. IS is super handy to help alleviate camera shake but it doesn't help motion blur from moving subjects. So if that's what you're looking to address, don't bother.

Heya,

Use higher ISO.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17155858
Heya,

Use higher ISO.

Very best,

Would be helpful to not state the obvious

tongard wrote in post #17155915
Would be helpful to not state the obvious

the obvious is all that needed to be stated. image quality between both versions of the 70-200 f4 are equally impressive

The obvious would have been to search for the 100's of identical treads on here rather than starting a new one.
The answer to this question has been posted so many times in surprised anyone bothers asking still.

I bought my non IS used for around 550.00. I say I can take descent shots with other lenses but this one I've never had a tack sharp image. Have used different ISO's shot M, P, Auto color was good but no sharper than my old 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens. My shots with my 60mm F/2.8 Macro and 100 f/2.8 Macro blew it away, just didn't have the distance. Is it possible I had a bad copy? It is the only used lens I have ever purchased.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #17155942
The obvious would have been to search for the 100's of identical treads on here rather than starting a new one.
The answer to this question has been posted so many times in surprised anyone bothers asking still.

Sorry Dave called myself searching......didn't see have had my sister in hospital for 12 days with cancer and lung surgery so am a little tired must be an oversight on my part. I do so apologize. Finally instead of being rude all you would have had to do was point me to the right thread. I hate asking questions on this forum people are always so ill.

Brian_R wrote in post #17155932
the obvious is all that needed to be stated. image quality between both versions of the 70-200 f4 are equally impressive

I have never owned the non-IS version, but I understand the IS version has updated optics along with image stabilization. Since I only have owned the IS version, I cannot personally attest to how much of a difference it makes in image quality.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #17155942
The obvious would have been to search for the 100's of identical treads on here rather than starting a new one.
The answer to this question has been posted so many times in surprised anyone bothers asking still.

And in the amount of time you spent typing this, you could have just gave the answer that's been posted so many times. Why bother responding at all? You should be taking pictures instead.

Thanks Scott and Boone, Jen.

to answer the TS, yes, IS is greatly needed at this focal range. I dont think I could buy a 70-200 non stabilized. I shoot way too much still life, where it's desperately needed.

If money were an issue, I'de simply save longer. Using F4, you're already starved for light as is.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #17155942
The obvious would have been to search for the 100's of identical treads on here rather than starting a new one.
The answer to this question has been posted so many times in surprised anyone bothers asking still.

I thought that this type of response was not allowed on these forums.

riveragaryj@juno.com wrote in post #17156482
I thought that this type of response was not allowed on these forums.

I believe you are correct.

4. (The "don't be a jerk" language)

Have fun!
See Rule Number 1!!!
We think empathy ,caring and sharing is cool
Intelligence is valued but not required
People can not see your face, use smileys when needed
Though we encourage members to engage in healthy debate, we do not condone personal attacks on members. Ideas can be disputed or challenged, but attacks on a personal level are unacceptable and when they are discovered or brought to the attention of the staff, will be dealt with accordingly. Ideas can be attacked, but individuals cannot.
You will not "stalk" or otherwise harass other members.
Goodbye posts (post seeking attention when you are abandoning the forums) are forbidden.
If you know an answer to a question either answer it or say nothing. Giving newbies blunt answers like "search the forum" is not allowed - please use the typing effort to giving the answer instead. Or just give the link to that post you wished the newbie should have searched for. Respect newbies - you were a newbie once.
Falsifying your identity to promote a site or business in which you are involved and/or solicitations are expressly prohibited on these Forums.
Falsifying your identity with numerous postings under different names is not permitted and can be cause for deletion of your postings regardless of the content.
You will not upload or attach files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another's computer.
You will not attempt to access any protected sections of the sites or Forums, nor make use of any hacks, cracks, bug exploits, etc. to bypass or modify the features of the Forum software at Canon-Digital-Photography.

Charlie wrote in post #17156452
to answer the TS, yes, IS is greatly needed at this focal range. I dont think I could buy a 70-200 non stabilized. I shoot way too much still life, where it's desperately needed.

If money were an issue, I'de simply save longer. Using F4, you're already starved for light as is.

Noted Charlie thank you for your help. I ended up calling B&H and talking to some people I have shopped with before. I think this lens in IS is exactly what I need and in budget.