70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

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 3 4 end

coppertop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

No.
The f4 is a smaller lens and very handholdable, IMHO, even at lower shutter speeds. I've had the f.28 non IS version for years and never missed the IS.

Granted no two photographers are built the same so others experiences may differ.

Jan 20, 2013 at 12:42 AM

GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Buy used. The difference in price is much less. The IS goes for around $750-900 and the non-IS from $450-525, though it takes some patience to find one in the lower range.

Jan 20, 2013 at 01:10 AM

rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Knowing this lens holds its value the way mine did, I wouldn't buy it used. The price difference is so small. It's a personal preference.
I bought the following items new: 5D, 24-105, 16-35ii, 50/1.8, 70-200/4IS, 135L (all in one buy)
I sold the 135L and 70-200/4IS and bought a new 70-200/2.8mkII two years ago.
I bought a used 40D (sold it again too) and a used 5DmkII.

Jan 20, 2013 at 09:27 AM

dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

I think most normal users have this dilemma, it's a lot extra to pay 'just' for IS.

But it really is worth it if you ever want to hand-hold, the IS is just stunningly good, as is the IQ

Jan 20, 2013 at 09:47 AM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

The IS lens is a sharper lens even if you don't use the IS. There are more differences than just the IS between those two lenses

Jan 20, 2013 at 12:11 PM

mlgreg
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

You asked about the minimum shutter speed as the reciprocal of focal length of telephoto lenses. The question was in re a 200mm max focal length zoom on a 1.6 crop body. The answer given in the forum is correct. The only factor that comes in to play in this "rule of thumb" is the length of the lens. The size of the sensor does not contribute to how much the front lens element is likely to move due to camera shake.

The issue is image sharpness as a function of circle of confusion. If you magnify that circle of confusion by 4, (from 50mm to 200mm), then the shutter has to go four times as fast to prevent the circle from jiggling around when the camera twitches just the least amount as the shutter button gets pressed and the mirror slaps around and the photographer breathes etc.

The cop factor of the sensor does not in any way increase the magnification of the image. It only "crops" the image. A 1.6 crop factor sensor produces an image which is 62.5% the size of a full frame image by "cropping" of the edges and only leaving the 62.5% in the middle of the image. Cutting the edges off does not affect the image size or the magnification of the lens, so it has no affect on the camera shake calculations which are what suggests the minimum shutter speed.

Think of it this way, if you take a picture of a duck in a puddle with a full frame camera and your buddy beside you with the identical lens uses a 1.6 crop factor lens, you both have images of the same duck which is the exact same size on both of your sensors. The only difference is that your buddy got less puddle. He got exactly the same amount of duck but way-y-y-y-y-y-y too many people think he got a bigger duck just because he got less of the puddle. Taint so by a long shot the ducks are exactly the same pixel for pixel, (assuming the pixels are the same size of course).

Sometimes you don't want as much puddle, some times you do. The thing is you can throw away the extra puddle in post processing by "cropping". But if you want more puddle with the smaller sensor you have to back up or get a shorter lens. either way you get a smaller duck. For me, I will stay with the bigger sensor and do my cropping in photoshop. I get just as much duck as anybody else, and I can throw away the puddle I don't want. The guys with the small sensors have to settle for less duck if they want any more puddle.

But we have exactly the same issues with sharpness due to camera shake and magnification that is only dependent on the length of the lens, until image stabilization comes in to the picture.

Jan 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

mlgreg wrote:

You asked about the minimum shutter speed as the reciprocal of focal length of telephoto lenses. The question was in re a 200mm max focal length zoom on a 1.6 crop body. The answer given in the forum is correct. The only factor that comes in to play in this "rule of thumb" is the length of the lens. The size of the sensor does not contribute to how much the front lens element is likely to move due to camera shake.

The issue is image sharpness as a function of circle of confusion. If you magnify that circle of confusion by 4, (from 50mm to 200mm), then the shutter has to go four times as fast to prevent the circle from jiggling around when the camera twitches just the least amount as the shutter button gets pressed and the mirror slaps around and the photographer breathes etc.

The cop factor of the sensor does not in any way increase the magnification of the image. It only "crops" the image. A 1.6 crop factor sensor produces an image which is 62.5% the size of a full frame image by "cropping" of the edges and only leaving the 62.5% in the middle of the image. Cutting the edges off does not affect the image size or the magnification of the lens, so it has no affect on the camera shake calculations which are what suggests the minimum shutter speed.

Think of it this way, if you take a picture of a duck in a puddle with a full frame camera and your buddy beside you with the identical lens uses a 1.6 crop factor lens, you both have images of the same duck which is the exact same size on both of your sensors. The only difference is that your buddy got less puddle. He got exactly the same amount of duck but way-y-y-y-y-y-y too many people think he got a bigger duck just because he got less of the puddle. Taint so by a long shot the ducks are exactly the same pixel for pixel, (assuming the pixels are the same size of course).

Sometimes you don't want as much puddle, some times you do. The thing is you can throw away the extra puddle in post processing by "cropping". But if you want more puddle with the smaller sensor you have to back up or get a shorter lens. either way you get a smaller duck. For me, I will stay with the bigger sensor and do my cropping in photoshop. I get just as much duck as anybody else, and I can throw away the puddle I don't want. The guys with the small sensors have to settle for less duck if they want any more puddle.

But we have exactly the same issues with sharpness due to camera shake and magnification that is only dependent on the length of the lens, until image stabilization comes in to the picture.

yes and NO

take your exmple of 2 buddies shooting the same duck. your example works only if the 2 cameras used have the same (or very close ) sized pixels. eg 5D2 & 20/30D .

Also, if both senors have the same number of pixels but the crop is a smaller sensor (lets use the Nikon d700 &D300 as the example as they are both 12mp) and we again shoot with the same focal length from the same position, then FF user will have more of the puddle and the Crop user will have more of the duck. if FF user crops to the same size duck then he will have less pixels of the duck.

also
shutter speeds and camera shake:

the way you view an image makes a huge difference. I can think that a image I shoot looks totally sharp when viewed on my ipad3 but not when viewed on my PC monitor. and if I had an even larger monitor then its going to notice even more. (and non of that is by viewing at 100%)

Jan 20, 2013 at 01:11 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Hi Michael,

You're confusing magnification of the image at the sensor, which is based solely on lens focal length and distance to subject, with apparent sharpness which is assessed at the presentation size, not at the sensor size. Magnification of the image from capture size on the sensor/film to the presentation size is a critical parameter when considering apparent sharpness.

For example, compare image "originals" taken with the same lens of the same subject, at the same distance, on a FF camera (sensor 36mm x 24mm) and a 1.6x CF camera (sensor 22.3mm x 14.9mm). If you make 8" x 12" prints of both images, the presentation magnification for the FF image is 12"/36mm = 8.53x, and that for the 1.6x CF image is 12"/22.3mm = 13.67x. This effect is illustrated by the attached figure, which shows the same magnification at the sensors for both cameras, but different magnification at a common presentation size.

Clearly, any slight unclarity or unsharpness at the original image size will be magnified significantly more on the 1.6x crop image than the FF image. The difference in magnification between different sensor/film sizes to a common presentation size also affects the depth of field and bokeh.

This magnification effect is often incorrectly called "longer reach", where, "longer reach" is actually a function of pixel density or pixels per duck (ppd), not sensor size. The quality or usability of real "longer reach" between cameras with different sensor density is affected by sensor image quality (IQ) at the per-pixel level. When comparing cameras of about the same vintage, sensors with lower-density (i.e. fewer ppd) usually have higher per-pixel IQ than sensors with higher ppd.

The diameter of the circle of confusion (COC) does indeed vary according to the size of the sensor or film format, for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Of course, the COC concept is somewhat irrelevant when evaluating apparent sharpness at the sensor magnification. In this case, things like "IQ per pixel" and pixel density become complicating factors.

Back to the original point: whatever shutter speed you decide is your personal "best above" speed on a particular camera format, then it should indeed be increased or decreased in proportion to the size of other camera formats, assuming that you're judging acceptable sharpness at a common presentation size, which is typically a print or an 'unzoomed' image on a computer display.

Cheers, Jim

P.S. to further complicate matters, many people (self included) think that apparent sharpness is the preceived combination of resolution and contrast.

P.P.S. I had breakfast while Ian was typing.

Jan 20, 2013 at 01:41 PM

rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

These are all very extensive mathematical explanations why you should in fact use 1/320s instead of 1/200s. Nothing wrong with that. I find that the easy way to look at this is as follows:
Imagine yourself putting your combo on a tripod and turning it around the vertical axis at contstant speed (do not actually do this, just imagine). The image viewed through the viewfinder is moving, simulating motion blur caused by hand holding the camera. The 1.6x crop body shows a smaller part of the scene, so the speed at which the scene rolls through the viewfinder is exactly 1.6x higher. Therefore, you should use 1.6x faster shutter speeds to compensate for the motion blur.

If 1/200 (FF) or 1/320 (1.6xcrop) is fast enough depends on your equipment. For non-IS lenses I find 1/FL is not enough for the average user. Only with the best possible hand holding technique this value is fast enough. I usually use 1/2xFL or even 1/3xFL if I really need the shot. That said, I have managed to shoot extremely sharp images at 1/25s @200mm on FF using the IS on my 70-200/2.8mkII.

Jan 20, 2013 at 02:18 PM

Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

also the distance to the target has an effect as well.

take rabbits example above (quite a good one as well) . just in the same way that when your sat on a train looking out of the window, the tress and stuff thats close to you looks like its buzzing by in a blurr , but the countryside thats in the distance is much easier to focsu on.

Jan 20, 2013 at 03:09 PM

ardvorak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Simply put, yes.

Jan 20, 2013 at 03:14 PM

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

p.2 #12 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Sven Jeppesen wrote:
The IS lens is a sharper lens even if you don't use the IS. There are more differences than just the IS between those two lenses

I have both lenses and I do not find that to be true at all. Basically, both of them are very sharp lenses.

rabbitmountain wrote:
These are all very extensive mathematical explanations why you should in fact use 1/320s instead of 1/200s.

You probably know this already, but just be clear about a common misconception about focal length and shutter speed, the 1/focal length recommendation is just a sort of starting point, but not at all an objective fact. Using a full frame camera, some might be able to shoot at a longer shutter speed and produce a fine image, while others might have a problem even at that speed. It varies person to person, situation to situation, and subject to subject.

What is true is that you'll likely need a faster shutter speed by a factor equal to the crop factor, no matter what shutter speed would have worked for you with full frame. So if you like to shoot 1/100 second at 50mm on full frame you would likely want to shoot at 1/160 second with a 50mm lens on your 1.6x cropper.

(I won't belabor the reason for it, but folks who think it through will probably see why.)

Take care,

Dan

Edited on Jan 20, 2013 at 04:44 PM · View previous versions

Jan 20, 2013 at 04:38 PM

dlodi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Tim,

You will enjoy this lens immensely. Seriously consider a used copy if price is a factor. I'd consider one even if price isn't a factor. If you can find one locally you will have an opportunity to inspect it. Here on FM you can usually buy with confidence. I've never had an issue. You should be able to pick one up in great condition for between $850 and $900. Its funny. Just a thought. Enjoy!

Jan 20, 2013 at 04:44 PM

Monito
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

wrote: The IS lens is a sharper lens even if you don't use the IS. There are more differences than just the IS between those two lenses

wrote: I have both lenses and I do not find that to be true at all. Basically, both of them are very sharp lenses.

Both are sharp lenses.

The test charts shot on the-digital-picture.com show that the IS version is noticeably sharper, especially in the corner, especially at f/4 and f/5.6.

comparison tool specific to the two lenses

Jan 20, 2013 at 04:49 PM

rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Dan, I don't understand your reply. You basically repeated what I wrote in other words. Did you read my entire post at all?

Jan 20, 2013 at 05:29 PM

rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
also the distance to the target has an effect as well.

take rabbits example above (quite a good one as well) . just in the same way that when your sat on a train looking out of the window, the tress and stuff thats close to you looks like its buzzing by in a blurr , but the countryside thats in the distance is much easier to focsu on.

I don't agree. if target B is twice as far as target A, the speed at which it moves through the viewfinder is twice as high, but also twice as large, meaning the speed at which it moves from the left border to the right border of the frame is identical.
What you bring into play is the movement of the subject, not that of the photographer.

Jan 20, 2013 at 05:39 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

rabbitmountain wrote:
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
also the distance to the target has an effect as well.

take rabbits example above (quite a good one as well) . just in the same way that when your sat on a train looking out of the window, the tress and stuff thats close to you looks like its buzzing by in a blurr , but the countryside thats in the distance is much easier to focsu on.

I don't agree. if target B is twice as far as target A, the speed at which it moves through the viewfinder is twice as high, but also twice as large, meaning the speed at which it moves from the left border to the right border of the frame is identical.
What you bring into play is the movement of the subject, not that of the photographer.

It's related to relative angular velocity. Do the math...

Jan 20, 2013 at 06:22 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

I'm a bit confused about some things being said here.

I have a lot of trouble understanding why "crop factor" has anything to do with minimum shutter speed hand-held. A cropped sensor is just like a full frame sensor, except smaller (ignoring pixel size). If it's steady in the middle part of a full frame sensor, it'll be steady on a crop sensor with the same size pixels as the full frame.

I can easily believe that pixel size has everything to do with it.

One can hand-hold at a specific focal length with a 5Dc much more readily that with a 5D2, merely because of the size of the pixels. One can hand hold about equally with a 10D (1.6 crop) and a 5D2, because they have similar pixel densities.

Ascribing any such thing to "crop factor," without taking into account pixel density, makes about as much sense to me as people talking about "crop reach," as if the cropped sensor magically gives a 1.6x on focal length; it doesn't (it just crops the image being projected). But, for instance, the higher pixel density of the 7D overy the 5D2 gives the 7D some very usable "digital zoom" over the 5D2.

Mark

Jan 20, 2013 at 06:56 PM

rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

Hi Mark,

Sharpness has to do with pixel size (provided you have good lenses). Camera shake induced motion blur does not.

The point is, that we are comparing FF and crop cameras with a lens that has identical physical Focal Length setting for both cameras. For instance, a FF camera with a 70-200 set to 200mm compared to a 1.6x crop camera with a 70-200 set to 200mm (320mm eq. focal length). So in this case, the crop camera records only a small part of the frame compared to the FF camera. However, this small part will later on be enlarged in order to be printed on the same paper size as the FF recorded image. This means that any camera shake induced motion blur is amplified and thus becomes more visible.

If one would compensate the zoom setting on the crop camera to match the FF image (by setting the zoom ring to 125mm Focal Length) that would be a different story. But that's not what we were discussing.

Jan 20, 2013 at 07:17 PM

Monito
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · 70-200f4L, is IS worth an additional $ 500.00?

StarNut wrote: Ascribing any such thing to "crop factor," without taking into account pixel density, makes about as much sense to me as people talking about "crop reach," as if the cropped sensor magically gives a 1.6x on focal length; it doesn't (it just crops the image being projected). But, for instance, the higher pixel density of the 7D overy the 5D2 gives the 7D some very usable "digital zoom" over the 5D2.

That only applies if you enlarge everything to "100 % crop", so that the pixels are the same size. The result will be a variety of print sizes.

The degree of enlargement, the viewing distance, and the visual acuity of the observer is what you have to take into account, just like for depth of field. However, for the sake of discussion, let's ignore the latter and assume a 'good eyesight standard observer'. It is also important to note that when discussing camera shake and handheld photography one has to take a statistical view (to avoid the trap of binary thinking). But more on that later.

Consider a 50 mm lens on a full-frame sensor. To make an 8x12 inch print that you view at a comfortable viewing distance (seated at a table), you need to enlarge the image 8 times (8x) because the image is the 1 x 1.5 inch image that forms on the sensor (24 x 36 mm).

If the camera moves 0.04 mm during the shot, you might be able to just see it in the print if you look carefully. If it moves 0.03 mm, you probably won't see it. Enlarged 8x, the 0.04 becomes 0.32 mm.

Now put the same lens on the crop sensor camera, which captures an image 15 x 22.5 mm (about 2/3 x 1 inch). That has to be enlarged 13 times (13x) to make the same print. So if the camera moves 0.03 mm during the shot, the enlarged blur becomes 0.39 mm and you will be able to see it.

Note that it is taking less camera movement to become visible.

In fact, if you divide the 0.04 mm full-frame camera movement by the 1.6 crop factor, you will find that a 0.025 mm crop-factor camera movement will make the same 0.32 blur in the print.

Thus you have to increase the shutter speed 1.6x to cut the blur to match the blur from the full-frame camera with the same focal length.

So the old formula of 1-over-focal-length for 35 mm negatives/slides/DSLRs has to become 1-over-focal-length-times-1.6 for crop-factor (APS-C) negatives/slides/DSLRs.

This is what Jim Colwell means by "do the math".

Edited on Jan 20, 2013 at 08:37 PM · View previous versions

Jan 20, 2013 at 08:33 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end