70-200mm f/4 non-is

70-200 F4 L non IS with Kenko 1.4x extender, hand held.

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

I have the non IS 70-200 .. but I bought mine even before the with IS version came out. If i knew it was going to be comming out, I would have bought the IS version. IS improves my static shot keeper rate by A LOT.

If I had the option and money, I would want IS on all my lenses.

Ive heard IS is useless when panning birds in flight etc, is this true?

aladyforty wrote in post #2398057
Ive heard IS is useless when panning birds in flight etc, is this true?

When the subject moves IS is not effective.IS does not stop motion of the subject.Only if you shoot in low light conditions static subjects it will help.If you are thinking of 1000+ range think of the 70-200 f2.8 non IS(the sharpest of all 70-200).

ed rader wrote in post #2391336
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

WOW!!! what do you mean by 1.4 TC ?

thedoc wrote in post #2398080
When the subject moves IS is not effective.IS does not stop motion of the subject.Only if you shoot in low light conditions static subjects it will help.If you are thinking of 1000+ range think of the 70-200 f2.8 non IS(the sharpest of all 70-200).

If this is true - then for high speed action ( ie- NHRA ) what lens is the very best and how do you get those dead stopped subject pics in crystal clear clarity? ie- wrinkled tires etc.

it appears IS is pretty much useless unless you're a recovering alcoholic and shake like a mo fo L!

2KOOL Performance.com wrote in post #2920984
WOW!!! what do you mean by 1.4 TC ?

1.4x teleconverter, multiplies the focal lenght to roughly 100-280mm..

IMO, everybody who says IS is useless, does not know what they are talking about. Like Ed says: it is like having a built-in tripod. And this is true for any lens with built-in IS. It is also true that it generally doesn't help with subjects moving in unpredictable ways.

Once movement is predictable, or there is less movement, or the movement occasionally slows down or stops, and light circumstances are not so favourable, IS comes into its own. I've used the 70-200 F/4 IS indoors at 1/20s and 200 mm, available light, taking sharp pictures. I have similar experiences with the 24-105, and the 100-400. The latter handheld at 1/45s at 400 mm, in not so favourable conditions. Try that with a Bigma, a Tamron 200-500, or a Sigma 170-500.

With regard to the 70-200 F/4 L vs the 70-200 F/4 L IS: I started with the 70-200 F/4 non-IS as my telezoom, and was stunned by the IQ it provided, even with the 1.4X extender. I also found that the 2X extender didn't fare too badly either on this lens. It is a true gem.

The 70-200 F/4 IS was added recently to my bag, been lusting after it since seeing all the tests and pics all around. From my own tests and real life photography I drew the conclusion that it is even better, IQ-wise, by approximately half a grade: slightly better contrast, slightly better resolution, eye-popping crispness IOW, and even better bokeh than its older sibling. And on top of that it has the latest version of IS, allowing for great candid photography and other effects. With the 1.4X extender it also is slightly better than the older, non-IS version. I haven't tried it with the 2X extender yet, but since I now have the 100-400 as well, I am not too bothered by that: this lens ended up in my bag because of the fact that you only have MF with the 70-200 F/4 + 2X extender. I will try the 70-200 F/4 IS out with the 2X extender, but I guess it will be summer by then, when hiking relatively light weight.

Is the F/4 IS worth it price? Considering the increase in IQ, with the addition of IS, for me the answer is a resounding YES. Of course, for you the end result may differ. Even so, the 70-200 F/4 non-IS is one great lens regardless.

The way I see it, is that the 70-200 F/4 is the budget version of the 70-200 F/2.8, with equal IQ for the same f-stops, and the 70-200 F/4 IS is the budget version of the 70-200 F/2.8 IS, at better IQ for the same f-stops.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Well put WIMG!!!

great post!

This only relates to the Canon 17-85 IS lens - however it shows what IS can do.
Full size pics hand held to 1/8 second.

http://www.poseruniver​se.net …S_1600/Canon_16​00_IS.html

I now have a the Canon 70-300 IS lens and find it is very hand holdable. If I could afford it all my lenses would be IS.

Can someone tell me which is sharper. The 70-200 non IS and EF 1X4 or the EF 100-400 IS usm with no extentions on?

Just bought my none IS version a month ago.

Very pleased with the results..

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

aladyforty wrote in post #2925301
Can someone tell me which is sharper. The 70-200 non IS and EF 1X4 or the EF 100-400 IS usm with no extentions on?

If you have a good 100-400 the 100-400 is, in theory, maybe a teensy weensy better. In practice you can't see the difference, so I would put that combination ex aequo. However, you'll miss the 280-400 part of the zoom range, so if you need that, you're stuck, and the 70-200 with 2X extender is certainly not better than the 100-400 at that or any other range for that matter.

BTW, if I have to order the 70-200s and 100-400 for IQ, the list would look like this:
1. 70-200 F/4 IS
2. 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS and 70-200 F/4 non-IS
3. 70-200 F/2.8 IS
4. 100-400 IS

Now let's slap a 1.4 converter on, except for the 100-400. Note: We're looking at IQ here, not at maximum aperture:
1. 100-400 IS and 70-200 F/4 IS
2. 70-200 F/4 non-IS
3. 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS
4. 70-200 F/2.8 IS
Note: we still miss the 280-400 range for the 70-200s, of course.

Next step, 2X converter; again no converter for the 100-400:
1. 100-400 IS
2. 70-200 F/4 IS and 70-200 F/4 non-IS
3. 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS
4. 70-200 F/2.8 IS

However, there is a clear gap between the 100-400 and the 70-200s in this case. OTOH, this can be overcome, generally, by some postprocessing. You can still slap a 1.4 X converter on the 100-400, to give you a 140-560 F/6.3 - F/8 lens, with, IMO, acceptable image quality. And even on a non-1D series body you can still have AF, be it slow and hunting, after taping the left three pins on the converter.

IMO, quality of the 1.4X with the 100-400 is slightly better than a 2X converter on the 70-200s. I wouldn't recommend a 2X converter on the 100-400, for IQ anyway. When I am really in a jiffy, I find myself doing that regardless .

BTW, something not to forget is that you are talking the top class of zooms here, in any category. I have taken candid portrait shots with my 350D and the 70-200 F/4 non-IS with 2X extender, MF, where you can count the pores in someone's face. So this is all relative, and it explains why people get such good shots, IQ-wise, with an extender mounted.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #2927036
If you have a good 100-400 the 100-400 is, in theory, maybe a teensy weensy better. In practice you can't see the difference, so I would put that combination ex aequo. However, you'll miss the 280-400 part of the zoom range, so if you need that, you're stuck, and the 70-200 with 2X extender is certainly not better than the 100-400 at that or any other range for that matter.

BTW, if I have to order the 70-200s and 100-400 for IQ, the list would look like this:
1. 70-200 F/4 IS
2. 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS and 70-200 F/4 non-IS
3. 70-200 F/2.8 IS
4. 100-400 IS

Now let's slap a 1.4 converter on, except for the 100-400. Note: We're looking at IQ here, not at maximum aperture:
1. 100-400 IS and 70-200 F/4 IS
2. 70-200 F/4 non-IS
3. 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS
4. 70-200 F/2.8 IS
Note: we still miss the 280-400 range for the 70-200s, of course.

Next step, 2X converter; again no converter for the 100-400:
1. 100-400 IS
2. 70-200 F/4 IS and 70-200 F/4 non-IS
3. 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS
4. 70-200 F/2.8 IS

However, there is a clear gap between the 100-400 and the 70-200s in this case. OTOH, this can be overcome, generally, by some postprocessing. You can still slap a 1.4 X converter on the 100-400, to give you a 140-560 F/6.3 - F/8 lens, with, IMO, acceptable image quality. And even on a non-1D series body you can still have AF, be it slow and hunting, after taping the left three pins on the converter.

IMO, quality of the 1.4X with the 100-400 is slightly better than a 2X converter on the 70-200s. I wouldn't recommend a 2X converter on the 100-400, for IQ anyway. When I am really in a jiffy, I find myself doing that regardless .

BTW, something not to forget is that you are talking the top class of zooms here, in any category. I have taken candid portrait shots with my 350D and the 70-200 F/4 non-IS with 2X extender, MF, where you can count the pores in someone's face. So this is all relative, and it explains why people get such good shots, IQ-wise, with an extender mounted.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thanks, I cant afford the 100-400 yet but Im finding the 70-200 F4 non IS with a 1X4 TC very good. Would love a little more reach though