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

tigerotor77w wrote in post #17159900
Whether the IS will improve your photos is hard to say. Your 500 px has some pretty nice work on it already!

What I appreciate about IS a lot is its ability to steady what I see through the viewfinder. Even without a definitive improvement to an image, it makes composing the image quite a bit easier (for me). If your subject is moving, IS will not help in darker (e.g. cloudy days) environments. For that, you need to up the ISO or choose a larger aperture.

Thank you so much your shots are very impressive! My 500px are mainly shots taken with my 60mm f/2.8 Macro with IS. I'm going to give the 70-200 f/4 IS a try and see if indeed I get better quality, stick with my f/2.8 and flash for night. Thanks for your help I appreciate it.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17160067
Yes, the IS is worth the difference (assuming that you are taking photos of steady objects). If you need to photograph moving objects, then you will need higher ISO on yoru body or 2.8.

Going to try it and will post something here over the weekend. Thanks for the help!

Marco315 wrote in post #17160886
Thank you so much your shots are very impressive! My 500px are mainly shots taken with my 60mm f/2.8 Macro with IS. I'm going to give the 70-200 f/4 IS a try and see if indeed I get better quality, stick with my f/2.8 and flash for night. Thanks for your help I appreciate it.

You're too kind! Thanks.

I like the F4 IS because it's a light (relatively) lens that was at the time among the sharpest telephotos available. I had no specific need for another stop, as most of my subjects (as you may have noticed) are static.

If I did more portrait photography (increased desire for shallow DOF), or photography where subject movement needed to be frozen, I'd likely opt for the extra stop of the F2.8 IS Mark II. That lens is now sharper than the F4 IS, anyhow, so perhaps its value is even greater than simply going from F4 to F4 IS for your needs.

Happy shooting either way!

tigerotor77w wrote in post #17162123
You're too kind! Thanks.

I like the F4 IS because it's a light (relatively) lens that was at the time among the sharpest telephotos available. I had no specific need for another stop, as most of my subjects (as you may have noticed) are static.

If I did more portrait photography (increased desire for shallow DOF), or photography where subject movement needed to be frozen, I'd likely opt for the extra stop of the F2.8 IS Mark II. That lens is now sharper than the F4 IS, anyhow, so perhaps its value is even greater than simply going from F4 to F4 IS for your needs.

Happy shooting either way!

Thank you should be in tomorrow so will post

Tall grass at f/4 and 200mm on 6D-

Is that shot from the Queen Mary?

yup

Ursyn wrote in post #17165633

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/p1EN​7B Dusk in Warsaw by Adrian Boniecki, on Flickr

Love this shot

Here's the first shot bare naked I didn't but should have tweaked it before posting. Yes there is a huge difference in this lens compared to the non IS version I had.
http://500px.com …en-shep?from=user_library

Marco315 wrote in post #17160886
Thank you so much your shots are very impressive! My 500px are mainly shots taken with my 60mm f/2.8 Macro with IS. I'm going to give the 70-200 f/4 IS a try and see if indeed I get better quality, stick with my f/2.8 and flash for night. Thanks for your help I appreciate it.

Just curious - are you using an off brand 60mm? The EF-S 60mm macro does not have IS. The main reason I have the 100mm L is for the IS. IQ between the 60mm and 100mm is a wash.

Preeb wrote in post #17167778
Just curious - are you using an off brand 60mm? The EF-S 60mm macro does not have IS. The main reason I have the 100mm L is for the IS. IQ between the 60mm and 100mm is a wash.

Nope thanks for reminding me Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens, I always tend to forget it doesn't have IS because I never have any trouble with it.

Thank you.