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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · 70-200 F/4
  
 
MaxPollock
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · 70-200 F/4


Im thinking about getting this lens for my 7d.
Is it worth it to get the IS version even if i will always be shooting on a tripod?
thanks



Dec 18, 2012 at 02:04 PM
jwp721
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · 70-200 F/4


If you can spend the money and don't mind spending the money... buy the IS version.

I have had my f4 for about 5 years now. It is my favorite lens and my sharpest lens. But every now and then I wish I could shoot at a little slower shutter speed.

However for use with studio lights and tripods those times for me are not that frequent.....


John



Dec 18, 2012 at 02:17 PM
Paulthelefty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 70-200 F/4


Will you ALWAYS be on a tripod?

I have the f2.8 vII, and 99.9% of my shots are non-IS. BUT, when I get into that situation where I need it, I can flip a switch and off we go! Could I do without it? Yes. Am I glad I have it? YES!

Some say the f4 IS is actually sharper. I have no idea, but my non IS was a fine lens that I would not have parted with other than needing f2.8.

You will be very happy with either one.

Paul



Dec 18, 2012 at 02:25 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · 70-200 F/4


I've owned the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS. They're both excellent lenses. I didn't keep them, because I need f/2.8 quite often. If I got one again, it would be the IS version, because of the improved capability for handheld shooting. It's great for travel, especially when you don't have a tripod with you. If you're always using a tripod, then the IS version probably isn't worth the extra cost. OTOH, as soon as I think I always do something in a certain way, I find myself doing something different.


Dec 18, 2012 at 02:39 PM
dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · 70-200 F/4


I owned a 70-200 2.8L without IS and sold it because it never got used.

I then pondered the f4 or f4IS but I went for the IS and couldn't be happier. It is a staggeringly good zoom with terrific IS. I can handhold at speeds I didn't think possible

If you are certain you won't need the IS the standard f4 is probably as sharp (almost if not quite by the reviews I have read) but having had such good IS in a small light sharp tele zoom is really good to have.

Many have said the F4 non-IS is the best value quality tele zoom ever made, so you can't really go wrong



Dec 18, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Wobble
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · 70-200 F/4


Once you own the 70-200/4L, it may become your favorite hand held walk around lens. On a tripod, the IS gains you nothing. Handheld, you have the benefit of the IS when needed.

If you have the cash, spring for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and never look back. Yes, it weighs more, but on a tripod...



Dec 18, 2012 at 02:57 PM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · 70-200 F/4


when you consider what you can get an IS model for used, and that you've got the effect of the crop factor amplifying the perceived shake, i'd say definitely get the IS model. plus it's weather sealed. plus it's a completely awesome lens.


Dec 18, 2012 at 03:22 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · 70-200 F/4


MaxPollock wrote:
Im thinking about getting this lens for my 7d.
Is it worth it to get the IS version even if i will always be shooting on a tripod?
thanks


It turns out I have both - had the non-IS version for many years, and finally got the IS perhaps a year ago but kept the old one as a loaner and backup.

Both are excellent lenses in optical terms - among the best zooms that Canon makes in this regard. When you come right down to it, aside from price the only significant difference between them is the presence or not of IS.

If you are absolutely certain that you will never shoot off the tripod or in a situation in which IS is useful and if cost is a significant issue, the non-IS lens is a fine performer at a very good price. On the other hand, the value of IS is very real and I recommend it to anyone who may use the lens handheld.

Dan



Dec 18, 2012 at 03:27 PM
Gochugogi
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · 70-200 F/4


I owned both lenses and, while in the same ball park optically, the IS version was a notch better: virtually no flare shooting into the setting sun, a wee bit sharper and closer focusing and has moisture and dust seals. True, IS is normally not needed on a tripod, but when you need it, nothing else will do. Incidentally, IS can be very useful a on tripod under high vibration situations, e.g., shooting in strong gusts or on shaky floors (bridge traffic).


Dec 18, 2012 at 03:34 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · 70-200 F/4


At current FF pixel densities there's not much perceptible difference between the two lenses. But on a 7D you will notice a difference.

21MP FF comparison
18MP APS-C comparison



Dec 18, 2012 at 03:52 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Gochugogi
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · 70-200 F/4


snapsy wrote:
At current FF pixel densities there's not much perceptible difference between the two lenses. But on a 7D you will notice a difference.

21MP FF comparison
18MP APS-C comparison


Actually if you shoot sunsets there is a huge difference between both zooms on any camera. The 70-200 4L flares pretty bad and even produces ghost images of the sun. On the other hand the 70-200 4L IS is about as clean and flare free as it gets.



Dec 18, 2012 at 04:06 PM
abqnmusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · 70-200 F/4


I had the 70-200 non IS and used it for years photographing car racing and swimming competition. The lens can produce beautiful images.

There really is no need for IS and 70-200mm. The IS version is a bit sharper when I compared to a friends. But not a huge difference.

I now use the 200mm F2.8 prime. The F2.8 won out for night football shooting. The 200mm F2.8 prime is smaller and lighter than the large and heavy 70-200 2.8 bazooka lenses.



Dec 18, 2012 at 04:26 PM
dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · 70-200 F/4


abqnmusa wrote:
There really is no need for IS and 70-200mm.


?

Is that just for you or everyone, as I think a lot would disagree



Dec 18, 2012 at 04:33 PM
abqnmusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · 70-200 F/4


If you find IS necessary then buy a lens with IS.

I have no need for IS at 70mm or 200mm. I can easily hold the lens steady at those focal length. IS does nothing to stop a moving subject.



Dec 18, 2012 at 04:39 PM
dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · 70-200 F/4


abqnmusa wrote:
IS does nothing to stop a moving subject.


I think most people are aware of that

I have found the IS incredibly useful many times, I can hand hold at much slower speeds than I would normally, MUCH slower with the excellent system in the f4 IS



Dec 18, 2012 at 04:43 PM
LCPete
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · 70-200 F/4


I remember reading on another forum that the IS version is not as sharp as the non IS at the minimum focus distance , is this correct ?
it does not sound right to me

I own the non IS F4 its a superb lens very sharp



Dec 18, 2012 at 05:38 PM
MaxPollock
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · 70-200 F/4


thank for your guys input i think im going to go with the non-IS


Dec 18, 2012 at 05:50 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · 70-200 F/4


Gochugogi wrote:
I owned both lenses and, while in the same ball park optically, the IS version was a notch better: virtually no flare shooting into the setting sun, a wee bit sharper and closer focusing and has moisture and dust seals. True, IS is normally not needed on a tripod, but when you need it, nothing else will do. Incidentally, IS can be very useful a on tripod under high vibration situations, e.g., shooting in strong gusts or on shaky floors (bridge traffic).


If anything, you experience normal product variation within the line, perhaps accompanied by the warm glow that comes from owning a newer and more expensive product... ;-)

Both are excellent, and one will see no difference in IQ in photographs, even in very large prints.

abqnmusa wrote:
If you find IS necessary then buy a lens with IS.

I have no need for IS at 70mm or 200mm. I can easily hold the lens steady at those focal length. IS does nothing to stop a moving subject.


Well, yes. And congratulations to your on your remarkable rock-steady hands. However, no matter steady you are, IS does extend your ability to shoot at even longer exposure times without detrimental effects from camera vibration. Let's imagine that you can hold a 200mm lens perfectly steady at 50mm - enough so that no one will notice any camera motion blur in a 24" x 36" print. With IS you can now shoot the same subject at a few stops longer shutter speed.

If you always shoot from the tripod and if you are never limited by camera/lens stability but only by shutter speed and if you don't print very large... it totally makes sense to forego IS. It also makes sense if you need 70-200mm and can only afford it if you go without IS. However, for most photographers there will be times when IS turns out to be critical. (I have a story about a shot that I licensed that I simply would have missed had I not had an IS equipped lens on my camera.)

LCPete wrote:
I remember reading on another forum that the IS version is not as sharp as the non IS at the minimum focus distance , is this correct ?
it does not sound right to me


The IS version has an issue at 200mm and minimum focus distance (MFD) and wide open apertures. Basically you'll get a softer image, which I think is the result of halation more than of lack of resolution. Stopping down a bit helps. I cannot say whether or not the same issue exists on the non-IS version of the f/4 lens, though I never noticed it with that lens and I have noticed it with the IS version.

Dan



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:24 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · 70-200 F/4


Adding to this discussion, I have the 70-200/4 IS and tested it in parallel with the 70-200/4. I agree with Dan, both lenses were optically the same. Even I would agree that IS is not necessary for regular photography below 150 mm FL, I definitely like IS above 150 mm and especially here at 200 mm. Often I use this lens without tripod, so IS is a big help here.

I am using this lens also in combination with extension tubes for close-up shots.



Dec 18, 2012 at 07:15 PM
dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · 70-200 F/4


retrofocus wrote:
Adding to this discussion, I have the 70-200/4 IS and tested it in parallel with the 70-200/4. I agree with Dan, both lenses were optically the same. Even I would agree that IS is not necessary for regular photography below 150 mm FL, I definitely like IS above 150 mm and especially here at 200 mm. Often I use this lens without tripod, so IS is a big help here.


I was not an early adopter of IS, I didn't see the point (coming from medium and large format film) but now I regard IS as an extra safety feature, it's one less thing that can go wrong, even with good handholding technique errors happen and IS largely removes the possibility of camera shake and that is worth a lot to me.



Dec 18, 2012 at 07:33 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password