Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Archive 2011 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

StuCollings
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

I traded a f/2.8L non-IS for the f/4.0L because I found the bigger lens too cumbersome and my style didn't warrant the extra stop.

A year later I got the chance to try a f/4.0L IS and had to have one. It's a lens that deserves to be in the bag of every Canon shooter who doesn't need the low light ability of its' big brother.

Dec 06, 2011 at 06:52 PM

EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

grayrider wrote:
Robert,

Excuse my newbie questions. So, you are saying that the f4L IS lens is not just the f4L model with an IS added to it? It has a different lens set it in?

Fred

Yes, the f/4 IS is clearly better optically expect that the close focus is not good at the long end. The design has a plastic body and may not be as rugged as the metal lenses, but that is not a reason to avoid it.

EBH

Dec 07, 2011 at 01:10 AM

robstein
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

surf monkey wrote:
I had the non-IS before the IS version came out and it was really good. I ended up selling it to a friend and bought the new one, which is better optically, especially at f4, and the IS is very beneficial. The added sharpness wide open is very important since this isn't a fast lens. I would only opt for older one if you can afford the IS version, but even then I would probably wait and save a bit more.
and see... I am in the same boat but never bought the IS version..... still love it. You cannot go wrong with any of the 70-200.

Dec 07, 2011 at 01:39 AM

scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

For a crop camera, IS is very good to have. The lens is goinng to have the same field of view at 200mm as a FF 320mm lens, which means any shake is ampliified by 1.6.

Another plus is the better optics in the IS version.

However, the non IS lens is no slouch, and for the price, its a good buy.

Dec 07, 2011 at 01:58 AM

EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

robstein wrote:
and see... I am in the same boat but never bought the IS version..... still love it. You cannot go wrong with any of the 70-200.

That is true. When you test all five the differences are apparent. The new f/4 and f/2.8 IS lenses are really fine though. The f/4 IS does not need much improvement and it is unlikely there will be a series II for a very long time.

EBH

Dec 07, 2011 at 02:00 AM

eosuser2020
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

IS all the way. Having a feature and using it when required is better than not having it.

Dec 07, 2011 at 02:07 AM

outlawyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

The IS model blew my head off. Having only used 20 yr old zooms (but never the Drainpipe, significantly) which were at best awful for the most part, suddenly the 70-200F4 IS completely and forever changed my view on zoom lenses. The IS works great, it has the magical fluorite elements (which Canon grows in house), and was like having 125 primes as far as sharpness. Yet light and not huge.
Canon knocked it out of the park with that lens, IMO.

Dec 08, 2011 at 12:31 AM

campyone
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

I bought my non-IS about three months before the IS version hit the market. I've never had any interest in replacing it with the IS version, I'm very happy with the image quality of the non-IS. Of course I use a tripod most of the time so IS isn't important and I almost never shoot wide open. If I thought I'd see an obvious difference in image quality at say f/5.6 or smaller I'd be tempted but I'm not convinced there is, at least not enough to matter to me. But I do have to say that if the IS version had been available when I bought my non-IS I'd have gone for the IS just because I prefer the latest version of whatever.

Dec 08, 2011 at 01:59 AM

surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

campyone wrote:
I bought my non-IS about three months before the IS version hit the market. I've never had any interest in replacing it with the IS version, I'm very happy with the image quality of the non-IS. If I thought I'd see an obvious difference in image quality at say f/5.6 or smaller I'd be tempted but I'm not convinced there is, at least not enough to matter to me.

Yes, for a few applications, the non-IS is almost as good (i.e. on a tripod at small apertures). So if the IS version is stretching the budget too much, then the non-IS is great. And still one of the best deals among all Canon lenses. But for more versatility the IS really is the way to go.

Dec 08, 2011 at 02:07 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

The non-IS is a great lens if you will shoot primarily from the tripod. I have used one for a long time with very good results.

If you want or need to shoot hand held, the IS feature is likely to be very useful to you. I finally got the IS version of the lens a few weeks ago and, as luck would have it, needed to shoot some concerts right afterwards. I was able to use ISO 1600 on my 5D2 and hand hold shots with only stage lighting to work with. This would not have been possible with the non-IS lens.

Both lenses produce excellent image quality, and there is no significant reason to distinguish between them on that count.

Dan

Dec 08, 2011 at 09:22 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Canon 70-200 f/4L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

I upgraded from the 70-200 4L to the IS version last year and, while the IS version is slightly sharper, it is not earth shattering. In other words not worth upgrading solely for that reason. However the IS version has significantly better control of flare and ghosting. In fact, the most flare resistant lens I have used. The old 70-200 4L ruined many a sunset for me while the newer lens can take eyeball frying Hawaiian sunsets without flinching. The better flare control, IS and weather sealing make the IS version worth every penny of the extra half dozen benjamins it costs. My EF 70-200 4L IS USM review:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef70-200_4is.htm

Dec 08, 2011 at 09:47 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end