differnce between EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM and EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM

<p>Going to buy a EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM lens and it is quite cheap for me.<br>

I don't want to regret about it after purchase.<br>

What is the difference between IS USM and USM only models? Or Is that IS difference worth that price difference?<br>

Am I going to loose anything by not buying IS lens?<br>

Will I be regret ?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Sami</p>

 

<p>I chose to include the IS on all my canon lenses that offer this option. I don’t always use this feature, but if I want to hand hold my camera for a shot in the morning, evening, or any where there less than bright light, it is absolutely necessary. Even those shots using flash or flash fill, I will get more keepers if I turn on the IS. The only time I turn off the IS feature, are those times when I am shooting from a tripod, or shooting fast motion like sporting events or birds in flight, and occasionally I will not use it to help conserve battery life.<br>

I am not a professional photographer and just shoot things that catch my eye. If you want to know if IS worth the money, well, to me it is; however, others may not agree.</p>

<p>I upgraded from the 70-200 4L to the 70-200 4L IS and noted three differences besides the obvious IS feature: the IS version focuses closer, the IS version is much more flare resistant (perfect sunset lens) and, at least my copy, was a notch sharper at F4. The 70-200 4L IS is the best telezoom I have owned and I've owned a bunch of them.</p>

<p>Well, you don't say what you will be shooting and you don't have a gallery here, so it's hard to know if you would miss that feature. If you are shooting fast moving subjects, IS may not do anything for you. If you are planning on shooting mostly static subjects handheld, it can be a great benefit.</p>

Sami, The non i/s lens you say is cheap , so it will hold its value? I have that lens and it serves ME well, your call ! happy shooting

<p>Sami, I have owned the /f4 for many years and love it. However the lack of IS meant that I was missing too many shots so in the ened I augmented it with the far heavier but wonderful /2.8 IS and my percentage of keepers has improved dramatically. The original is so good though that I couldn't bear to sell it and now use it always on a tripod when I don't want the bulk of it's sibling and don't need the wider aperture. The two really lend themselves to far different uses and if I were starting all over again I'd definitely go for the /f4 + IS because of its sheer versatility and quality.<br>

Having said that, if you can bear a tripod and you want the opportunity to oqn quality with little depreciation the older one might well suit. You just have to plan more carefully how to use it - in itself, not a bad thing.</p>

<p>I own the F4IS (and the F2.8 non IS). The F4 IS is a great lens and very portable compared to the F2.8 lenses. The premium for IS is quite high but I also believe it has a slightly better optical formula and the circular blades may slightly improve Bokeh. The IS lens is also better weather sealed. The Digital picture test shots suggest that the IS lens is slightly sharper wide open.<br>

Is it worth an extra $575 is the key question<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0</p>

<p>If I purchase a 100-400 mm IS better option than having a 70-200 f/4 IS?<br>

If I have 100-400, will I miss 70-200 mm?</p>

 

<p>If I purchase a 100-400 mm IS better option than having a 70-200 f/4 IS?<br>

If I have 100-400, will I miss 70-200 mm?</p>

 

<p>Sami, you've never said what you'll be shooting. I've got the 70-200mm f/4L IS and use it with and without my 1.4x TC on my 5D2 very regularly. (I've got a 500mm f/4L IS on my 7D). It's a great combo, but if you'll be shooting birds you'll want at least 400mm.</p>

<p>The 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of Canon's top performers in terms of IQ and it's light and handy to have. AF slows down a little when you put on the 1.4x TC, but it's still fast enough for deer, coyote and other mammal, in general. For birds you'll need to be really close.</p>

<p>Bob Rozinski, a pro nature photographer friend of mine, uses the 100-400mm for almost everything that he doesn't shoot with his 600mm. I don't think he "misses" a 70-200mm.</p>

<p>The key is, what will you be shooting?</p>

<p>Sami, after reading both posts-it seems that your looking for an overall type of lens. I am confident in saying that the 70-200F4IS and it's sibling 2.8's are the best zooms Canon has ever offered in terms of IQ and usefulness.<br />There are times you might want the extra reach offered by a longer zoom, but you will be making compromises. The longer lenses are heavier, bulkier and not as fast wide open (5.6 on both, which will make a difference in how and when the lens is used). The longer zooms will give you extra reach and are close in terms of IQ, only you can decide what feature set is more important.</p>

<p>The difference is image stabilization. It depends on what you're shooting to determine whether or not it is worth it. For some people the 2.8 non-IS may be more valuable than the f/4 IS, or vice versa. For others, the f/4 non-IS may be just fine (I had this one and loved it). If you have the budget for an f/4 IS, the f/4 non-IS + 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.8 macro may be an option to consider instead. Lots of ways to go here. I'd figure out what your intentions are and look at all the possible lenses and lens combinations for your budget, then make a decision.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I purchase a 100-400 mm IS better option than having a 70-200 f/4 IS?<br />If I have 100-400, will I miss 70-200 mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This depends on what you're shooting, as others have implied. Do you need more than 200mm? Less than 100mm? Etc.</p>

<p>However, optically speaking, the 70-200/4 L IS is one of the two finest telephoto zooms currently available (the other being the 70-200/2.8 L IS II). It delivers prime level image quality and gives you a 3-4 stop gain in hand-holdability, all in a relatively light and compact lens body. The 100-400 L, on the other hand, is one of the optically mediocre L zooms, and has a less advanced IS system than the 70-200.</p>

<p>I agree completely with Philip's endorsement of the 70-200/4 L IS.</p>

<p>I will be shooting people, nature, kids, portraits.</p>

<p>and I already have 24-105 mm f/4 and 17-40 mm f/4</p>

<p ><a name="00ZY3T"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5797697">Sami Palta</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 02, 2011; 11:07 a.m. said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p >I will be shooting people, nature, kids, portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Then you want the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 1.4x TC. Consider a 25mm Extension Tube if you want to play around with macro.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You'll be overjoyed with the IQ and versatility of this lens, particularly when combined with the superb high-ISO performance of your 5D MkII.</p>

<p>I had the 70-200/4IS and regret selling it when I bought the 70-200/2.8IS, I didn't think I woud use both of them, I was wrong. The f4IS is tack sharp wide open and the IS is fantastic, can easily handhold at 1/60 sec at 200mm and get sharp photos, can't do that with my 2.8IS. It is also more compact and much lighter than the f2.8. You will not regret getting the 70-200/f4IS </p>

<p>Agree with Puppy Face. But on a budget I would have no hesitation buying or using the non-IS version. It is excellent in its own right.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I going to loose anything by not buying IS lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Optical superiority. It is a different optical formula. I've owned both lenses. The IS stays in my collection.</p>

<p>I say go for the IS version of this lens. I have it and it has served me well for both landscape work, and portrait work. When shooting portraits I shoot this lens wide open and it is sharp, with pleasing bokeh. I shot a wedding with this lens on my 5D MK I, and was able to get some amazing captures. Even though I was an unofficial photographer, the family that helped organize the wedding was overwhelmed at the qaulity of my images, and wondered why they hired a pro to shoot the wedding! Go for the IS version and you will not be unhappy. As mentioned already the IS is extremely good for hand-held work. Good luck.</p>

<p>I say go for the IS version of this lens. I have it and it has served me well for both landscape work, and portrait work. When shooting portraits I shoot this lens wide open and it is sharp, with pleasing bokeh. I shot a wedding with this lens on my 5D MK I, and was able to get some amazing captures. Even though I was an unofficial photographer, the family that helped organize the wedding was overwhelmed at the qaulity of my images, and wondered why they hired a pro to shoot the wedding! Go for the IS version and you will not be unhappy. As mentioned already the IS is extremely good for hand-held work. Good luck. I am uploading an example taken with the mentioned setup from that wedding. </p>

<p>I say go for the IS version of this lens. I have it and it has served me well for both landscape work, and portrait work. When shooting portraits I shoot this lens wide open and it is sharp, with pleasing bokeh. I shot a wedding with this lens on my 5D MK I, and was able to get some amazing captures. Even though I was an unofficial photographer, the family that helped organize the wedding was overwhelmed at the quality of my images, and wondered why they hired a pro to shoot the wedding! Go for the IS version and you will not be unhappy. As mentioned already the IS is extremely good for hand-held work. Good luck. I am uploading an example taken with the mentioned setup from that wedding. </p><div></div>

<p>In optical terms, both lenses are truly excellent performers. The only <em>significant</em> difference between them, other than the price, is the inclusion of image stabilization.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I will soon have to make the same decision. The other key difference between the two is weather sealing. The IS version is sealed and the non-IS is not weather sealed. Depends on where and in what conditions you will be using it, but for me, weather sealing is the deal breaker.</p>

<p>"...but for me, weather sealing is the deal breaker."</p>

<p>Are you shooting a sealed 1-series body?</p>