70-200 f/4 IS vs. non-IS

I've resolved to purchase my next landscape lens, and it will be either the 70-200 IS or non-IS.

My primary needs/wants are for landscape photography, and I'd like the best IQ at the best price point. For my primary use, landscapes, I will always have a tripod. Secondary use will be kids sports, the occasional portrait, stuff like that. So, is the IS version worth another $600 for my needs?

If you include the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II in the equation, the 70-200 f/4 L IS is even a better value in image quality. Since we are comparing only the f/4 L and the f/4 L IS, my answer is still the same, the 70-200 f/4 L IS. For me, image quality outweighs the difference in price. One of Canon's best. Adding the important feature of IS in this focal length will come in handy more than you may think.

Nick5 wrote in post #17266133
Adding the important feature of IS in this focal length will come in handy more than you may think.

This. And yes, it's worth the extra money.

If you are using a tripod, no, the extra money might not be worth it. But if you are going to be hand holding for a large portion of the time then, yes, absolutely. My friend always complains about wanting the IS version. Shooting in the shaded trees or even darker cloudy days he really would like IS.

In the $500 range the f/4L is best
In the $800-1000 range the f/4L IS is best
In the $1000-1500 range the f/2.8L IS might be best
And in the $2000 range the f/2.8L IS II is king over all others.

I've never used and don't read much about the Sigmas and Tamrons so I don't know where they fit in. But it sounds like the Tamron might be best in the $1500 range.

I've had both. IQ is very similar, the IS is only just slightly ahead if you pixel peep hard.

So the only real difference is the IS and weather sealing. That makes the choice simple for you. You know best whether or not you will need the IS.

I forgot to add that the IS versions also have weather sealing and that might make a difference if you are out in the wilderness. I put a priority on weather sealing over price for most of my lenses because I never know what lens I will feel like taking with me in whatever condition. And I like the peace of mind that I can shoot in the rain or snow and not worry.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17266093
I've resolved to purchase my next landscape lens, and it will be either the 70-200 IS or non-IS.

My primary needs/wants are for landscape photography, and I'd like the best IQ at the best price point. For my primary use, landscapes, I will always have a tripod. Secondary use will be kids sports, the occasional portrait, stuff like that. So, is the IS version worth another $600 for my needs?

Heya,

The non-IS F4L is going to be great for the cost, if you're using a tripod and doing landscape with it.

It's better to have the IS version, if you plan to handhold it a lot, and find yourself more often shooting the sports, portraits, etc, where having the better lens may be worth it to you (it's optically superior to the non-IS, but not in a way that makes you throw your hands up over it).

Very best,

I have the f/4 non-IS and the f/2.8IS. The f/4 is a nice lens for photography in bright light, but I almost never use it because most of my work is in dark venues. Not so much that the wider aperture/IS let me work in ambient lighting (i use flash most of the time), but that (a) AF is much faster on my cameras with a 2.8 max aperture lens, and (b) the IS stabilizes the viewfinder image, letting the AF sensor lock and track the target more effectively. Moving target shots really benefit from these features.

I was at an event recently, shooting from the sidelines, and looked up to see 4 other Canon users, all holding 70-200 2.8IS lenses. I didn't really need validation that I'd made the right choice, but it was good to see that we all agreed!

If I shot outdoors, or stationary subjects with flash, I would use the f/4 a lot more often. It's more comfortable to hold for extended periods and leaves little to be desired in terms of image quality.

If you plan to do a lot of tripod work with it, keep in mind that the f4 lenses don't include the tripod mounting ring... it's sold separately. (It's included on the f2.8 lenses.)

There is some image quality difference, but you really have to look for it. The two most recent models of 70-200 are the f4 IS and the f2.8 IS Mark II... and of all the Canon 70-200s they are the only two using fluorite elements for better control over chromatic aberration. Makes for a "crisper" looking image, particularly at the largest apertures. The IS on both these are also the later, 3 to 4 stop variety, while the earlier f2.8 IS has 2 to 3 stop rated IS.

Besides size, weight, price, and the extra f-stop, the biggest difference between the f2.8 IS Mark II and the f4 IS is focus speed in certain situations. In low light/low contrast, the f4 lens will struggle a little more... but under good conditions you won't notice any difference. Both use fast, accurate, reliable USM AF drive.

Personally I use the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" (can't justify the chunk of money to upgrade it).

I got a Velbon tripod collar from B&H for my 70-200 f4 and it works fine. I think it was $40. The extra for the IS version is money well spent, IMO.

I had the non IS version up until a little while ago, it's a great lens. If you're going to be doing landscapes using a tripod and sports in daylight the non-IS will be perfect. As far as shooting sports in less than ideal light, IMO I don't believe the IS version would make a bit of difference - it's the f4 that's the limiting factor (you won't be able to get the shutter speed needed for sports in lower light). I will admit that there were plenty of other times when shooting people in less than ideal light that I really really needed IS.

Also, I never used a tripod collar with my f4 - it's light enough that there's no issue with just using the camera mounting plate.

If you can afford the difference in cost for the IS version, I would advise going in that direction. I know you said you would be using a tripod all the time, but if you ever want to take hikes and travel lighter, having IS gives you the option of leaving the tripod behind at times. And it's always nice to have more options -- it makes your kit more versatile.

Sirrith wrote in post #17266696
So the only real difference is the IS and weather sealing. That makes the choice simple for you. You know best whether or not you will need the IS.

Given that you're going to use it outdoors, in rugged conditions, I second the suggestion to consider weather sealing. And IS makes the lens so much more versatile. If the budget allows, the IS version of the 70-200 f4 is an outstanding lens. I owned and loved it for many years, and only sold it when I found an equally outstanding lens that gave me an extra 100 mm of reach (the 70-300L).

I've been debating this too and think I'm going to go with the IS version.

I have and use the 70-200/4L IS.... Also have and use the original 70-200/2.8L IS.

The f4 IS lens is one of Canon's very best. It's the second newest of their 70-200s. It and the latest 70-200/2.8L II are the only two models (out of five) that use a fluorite element, which is probably why they have the "crispest" image rendition. The non-IS versions of both f4 and f2.8 are the two oldest models, too.

The supposed add'l "weather sealing" of the IS lenses doesn't impress me much. It seems to mostly be a rubber gasket on the bayonet mount. The rubber ring on my ten+ year old f2.8 IS shredded and tore off years ago... and I never bothered replacing it. There might be some add'l sealing around the switches and buttons... but I am not aware of any.

Plus, if you plan use the lens handheld for sports, the IS can definitely be handy. It is most useful for camera shake at slow shutter speeds, of course. But it also doesn't hurt, can help at higher shutter speeds. And it helps steady the image in the viewfinder, much as IS does on binoculars. That can be helpful when trying to track moving subjects.

FYI: the stabilization on the original 70-200/2.8 IS was rated for 2 to 3 stops assistance. The stabilization on the f4 IS and the f2.8 II IS is a newer type that's rated for 3 to 4 stops of assistance.

You'll have to decide for yourself... but to me the 70-200/4 IS is well worth the extra cost, not just for the IS.

As noted, the f4 lenses don't come with a tripod mounting ring.... but if you plan to use the lens on a tripod a lot, you'll want it. The Canon OEM tripod ring for the f4 is rather pricey... but the third party rings some others have mentioned are a viable alternative at about 1/3 the price.