Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

thats what i was worry about, not getting clear photos with the non IS counter part..

Many good lenses don't have IS, but we still use them anyways. But at 200mm you better have the stability of a tank or cradle it like a newborn child.

integlspwr wrote in post #11385199
thats what i was worry about, not getting clear photos with the non IS counter part..

In good light this lens is hard to beat for the money.... (every now and then I do consider upgrading to the IS version but this lens is so damn good I'd have a hard time letting it go)...


f/4 on 5d2...

This is nothing special, just a snap from the other day, but I expect shots like this to be decent. This was 1/50th of a sec and 200mm. Most of the blur is due to movement, I think. It would have been sharper on a tripod, I'm sure, but for regular snaps this is fine by me.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/55897143@N02/5​227938490/

When shooting at 200mm w/out a tripod - if you want a sharp shot - you'll need to practice your hand-holding technique for a slower SS or bump up the ISO to get a fast enough SS.

If you guys are planning to hand-hold the camera often and shoot with a slower shutter, then the IS is definitely recommended. I use mine mainly for sports, so it's not a big deal - but I am starting to use it more for portraits - so replacing it with the IS has crossed my mind more than a few times. It's such a great lens that it is a hard decision to make.

ive only had the lens for like a week and am in love with it!

Michael - According to your gear list you used to also own the f4 IS, was there a particular reason why you got rid of it?

Nice shots Versedmb and Al. Verse, absolutely sweet image, and the blurred background makes the paddler all the more interesting. Al, 1/50th?? That is something else... at 200mm (320 really ) that's almost a 4 stop IS on your holding technique! Pretty amazing.

I debated long enough on the IS version as well, and the key question is: 'is it WORTH it'. Worth is absolutely relative... if one has all the money and that extra $500 would be just spent on nothing at all or wasted in something without importance, then, absolutely, the IS is worth it! They are almost the same lens except from the IS which is always a plus with absolutely no downside other than price.

Now, if you are like me and you don't have those extra $500 or, for example, you mostly shoot in the wide to medium tele range but you still want a 70-200, perhaps the extra $500 could go into a lens that is more on your more frequent shooting range (this was my final decision making argument... I mostly will shoot 17-55ish, so I'd better put those $500 into that lens). Now, if the lens you will keep fixed to your camera is the 70-200, would never take it off and have the money, then the IS makes sense and it is worth it... heck, the 2.8 IS II makes sense and would be worth it as well.

It boils down to budget and shooting priorities. I know that have I had money to spend, I'd probably have gotten the f4 IS just for those times when its really needed. But, I'm in love with the non-IS and I am learning to work with what it can offer and the possibilities are endless.

Thanks everyone,
Rafa.

I debated for a very long time on this lens. In the end I wanted L glass and it fit my budget. So I found a good black friday deal.

Just got the lens on Wednesday night and am thrilled with the results. I'm impressed with the indoor capabilities with a speedlite.

don't have settings, but I imagine it was taken around 1/100 f4 1600

Oh yeah. This lens is a steal for $600 new. I almost want to order another while they are so abundant. Great for birding or landscapes. I have the 135L, and it's amazing, but I get way more shots with this lens, and most of them are excellent.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mjkjr/522887600​7/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mjkjr/522910143​5/

Unusually cold in UK right now.

Wow, great pics everyone!

As I said earlier, I'm a bit of a bird-shooter wannabe... my main passion are birds of prey, ever since I was little I have had a passion for them.

Here's a fellow I found in the the Oil Wells of our Jungle:

Wild (we think) cat from my parents garden.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

integlspwr wrote in post #11384941
is it worth spending the extra money on the IS version of this lens?

integlspwr wrote in post #11385199
thats what i was worry about, not getting clear photos with the non IS counter part..

dandan1 wrote in post #11385212
Many good lenses don't have IS, but we still use them anyways. But at 200mm you better have the stability of a tank or cradle it like a newborn child.

hieu1004 wrote in post #11385526
When shooting at 200mm w/out a tripod - if you want a sharp shot - you'll need to practice your hand-holding technique for a slower SS or bump up the ISO to get a fast enough SS.

If you guys are planning to hand-hold the camera often and shoot with a slower shutter, then the IS is definitely recommended. I use mine mainly for sports, so it's not a big deal - but I am starting to use it more for portraits - so replacing it with the IS has crossed my mind more than a few times. It's such a great lens that it is a hard decision to make.

I think the IS or non IS discussion cannot be decided by lens quality or by the quality of the pictures produced with either lens.

I believe the main factor is $$$. In my case I went with the non IS because of $$$, but I also have a couple of tricks to deal with situations where I don't want to bump up ISO and end up with 1/60 or 1/100, which is a shutter speed I usually am not able to hold steady.

Here is my favorite trick, I did not invent that one though. Actually it's quite an old one and it works best on cameras with grip. So here it goes:

1. Aim your target as any archer would do, point you left shoulder towards your subject.
2. Ram (literally) your camera into your left shoulder.
3. Tuck your left elbow under the lens hood and place your left arm under your right wrist and the left hand on you right shoulder. An over/under kinda thing.

The only draw back is that you have to use your left eye to look through the view finder.

I found this video on YouTube which explains this much better actually and has some other neat tricks as well. http://www.youtube.com …sx3-FWfwk&feature=related

It's worth a try.

Cheers.