70-200mm f/4 non-is

at what point in taking pictures do IS play a major role? if i'm taking pictures outside at moderately cloudy->sunny days, do the IS play a huge role w/ the zooms? i'm trying to justify 500~ vs 1000~ in price for the non-is vs is version and i'm coming up blank. how many of you bought the non-is and wish you had gotten IS instead, even at the double cost?

I have the non IS, It's easily hand holdable @200mm outside on very cloudy days (ISO 400-800)

I also have another shorter focal length IS lens (24-105), If you can easily afford the IS it never hurts, but I don't think the 200mm f/4 gains much by having it, unless you take a lot of pics @ that focal length indoors of static objects, I only use mine outside.

Given a time machine, I would still buy the non IS, price difference too much for my needs.

I have used my non IS with no problems - it is when you want the shoot indoors or in low light outdoors that the IS comes into play. There are thousands of users that are well satisfied with the f4 non IS.

Roy C wrote in post #2388086
There are thousands of users that are well satisfied with the f4 non IS.

Yep.. that's me! It is the finest lens I own.. uncompromising IQ plus it's light, compact and ultra-portable.

I have the non IS version and haven't regretted it yet. The rest has already been said...

Non IS user here.Very good lens and really sharp wide open.

Although I own this lens for just over 3 weeks it's simply AMAZING.

IS is nonesense don't worry about it. Worry about taking pictures because even with IS you still will get blurry pictures. Its something that is nice to have on a lens but it isnt something that is needed to take pictures. Training your hand and body to be steady is far a better investment then IS one a lens. IMO.

I'm happy with IS, if I was to spend more it'd be for the f/2.8!

I'd rather have the f4 and another good lens than IS.

I got the 17-85mm IS and to be honest, I don't see that big a difference in the IS vs non IS. It may help with any static objects, but most of what I shoot is moving - and FAST! (3 kids under 2 - they move much faster than I do!)

If you have the extra $$ and want to try it, go for it. But my next lens will be non-IS. I just don't see that it helps that much. And actually, the 70-200mm f4 is one I have my eye on. Either that of the f2.8. We'll see how much money I can save!

i have just oredered the f4 non is, i am only going to use it in daylight, anything less than daylight and i will stick on a prime and use my feet
I think f4 is fine for my needs, until i can afford better of course

Roy C wrote in post #2388086
There are thousands of users that are well satisfied with the f4 non IS.

I'm one!

Madweasel wrote in post #2390895
I'm one!

Me too! I loved that lens. Only reason I dont have it anymore is I got a killer deal on a f2.8 lens and having two of the same lens doesnt make sense to me.

imitations wrote in post #2388046
at what point in taking pictures do IS play a major role? if i'm taking pictures outside at moderately cloudy->sunny days, do the IS play a huge role w/ the zooms? i'm trying to justify 500~ vs 1000~ in price for the non-is vs is version and i'm coming up blank. how many of you bought the non-is and wish you had gotten IS instead, even at the double cost?

i took pictures with the non-IS for more than a year and i recently bought the IS.

if you don't know the difference you are not missing anything and if the IS had never been made i would still be using the non-IS....it is that good of a lens.

i took this picture standing in the ice plant on an overcast morning on asilomar beach, monterey, hand held with the 70-200L f4 non-IS and a 1.4 TC.

ed rader

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME