so after having recently acquired my 430 ex II flash, i'm in the market again for a new lens, this time for a tele.
i've read so many good things about canon's 70-200 lenses, and after balancing between my budget and desire for some good lenses that wont leave me with regrets, i'm looking at the f/4 and f/4 IS.
initially, i was set on the f/4 IS. after messing around with a friend's (crappy) tamron 70-300 (i think it was 300 anyways) i realized IS would be really handy in the long end. but after doing some searching on used lenses, it seems the non-IS version costs a little more than half of the IS version. the price difference comes to around 300-400$ US after conversion. am i going to miss the IS? i was thinking since the f/4 lenses are limited in low light anyways, why not sacrifice the IS and spend that money into getting something like the 85/1.8? or even a 1.4x converter? to make this more complicated, it seems a used f/2.8 non IS costs around the same as the f/4 IS. should i be considering this? im thinking no. i dont have a specific purpose for the lens, so the 2.8 doesnt appeal to me as much
what do you guys think?
btw it seems the non IS version is no longer in production/available in Korea. its still available at some stores, however. is this the same for other countries? canon korea still has it on their website.
ps. im going to be buying used for hte first time. im going to have to be able to examine the lens, and buy on the spot. what should i be looking for? how can i test the lens?
Both versions of the 70-200/4L zooms are limited in terms of shutter speed for low light work, so they aren't as good at capturing moving subjects as their faster f/2.8 relatives, or a 135/2L, for example. The real advantage IS gives you is the ability to get sharp shots of static subjects while shooting handheld in low light. If you can get steady shots at focal length 200mm using a shutter speed of about 1/200 sec, then the IS version will give you up to 4-stops advantage, which translates into about 1/15 sec (200>100>50>25>12.5). In other words, you should get about the same handheld sharpness at 1/200 on the 70-200/4L as at 1/15 sec with the 70-200/4L IS. That's a pretty big advantage. If you're shooting moving subjects, then the IS will give you a sharper background . If you're always using a tripod, you don't need IS (except for superteles).
for me, IS is an essential function for a telephoto lens, so the old 70-200 F4 is never in my list.
If you are on budget, why not considering 55-250 IS or 70-300 IS? IS is really an essential function for a telephoto lens unless you really know what you want. I know a lot of people buying 70-200 F4 because it's a white L lens and $400 cheaper than IS version, however they soon realize this lens is not very useful in a lot of situations, so they sell it soon afterward.
You can check out craiglist, there are always a lot more people selling 70-200 F4 than 70-200 F4 IS.
I can vouch for the 70-300 IS. near the quality of the 70-200/4 but cheaper. goes for around the sam as the non IS.
Downsides are not ring USM so is slower to focus , the front element rotates when focusing and it extends alot when zoomed.
I have it as walk around long zoom, but also now have a 80-200 2.8L which is great so if you can find one you may want to look into it. (no longer made)
Also I think you will find the 70-200 non IS is still in production so maybe importing from HK is an option.
. If you're always using a tripod, you don't need IS (except for superteles).