L series lens - is IS worth the extra cash?

<p>Hi All<br /> <br />I'm still a relative beginner when it comes to photography, but I'd like to step up and take my photography more seriously so I have decided that with a recent bonus from work I will invest in a new lens and I've had my eye on the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens. I am a bit of an all rounder and like to take lots of handheld shots, but I also enjoy taking a tripod out and shooting architecture and landscape too.</p>

<p>I can afford the £500 for the lens just. But then I look at the IS version of the lens and see that a lot of people say to save up for longer and get that instead. It is however another £350 which is a hell of a lot of money. So my question is whether I will find the non-IS version is just not quite right. But to be honest I am nervous of spending £850 on what is essentially a hobby.</p>

<p>Can anyone offer any advice on whether the non-IS version is likely to be good enough for me?<br /> <br />Thanks</p>

<p>I'm sure you'll get some comments that you don't really need IS with good light, fast shutter speeds or a tripod. And I'm certainly not disagreeing with those opinions. </p>

<p>I have many lenses, and I've never once thought I "wasted" money on the IS versions. In fact, quite the opposite is true; I wish all of my lenses had IS.</p>

<p>There are only few application where IS is not helpful (i.e., sports...). So if there is a stabilized version available, I would get the IS lens.</p>

<p>Howver, if you cannot afford the IS version, I would rather get a couple of fast primes instead of a a slow zoom -- unless you <em>need</em> the flexibility.</p>

<p>Honestly, I never missed IS on my 70-200mm L f/4, but then again I might be just lucky or clueless.</p>

<p>I can only comment from personal experience. I bought the 70-200 years ago and it's a really beautiful lens in every respect. I became disappointed with the quality of one or two handeld portrait images while being used here in the UK ie sometimes poor light and decided to buy the /2.8 IS version. I've not been disappointed and have decided to keep both each for their own intrinsic worth. If I were starting again I'd save for the /4 IS. I don't own it but it's rated so highly and is so versatile. My experience of the 70-200's is and has been wonderful.</p>

<p>I can only comment from personal experience. I bought the 70-200 years ago and it's a really beautiful lens in every respect. I became disappointed with the quality of one or two handeld portrait images while being used here in the UK ie sometimes poor light and decided to buy the /2.8 IS version. I've not been disappointed and have decided to keep both each for their own intrinsic worth. If I were starting again I'd save for the /4 IS. I don't own it but it's rated so highly and is so versatile. My experience of the 70-200's is and has been wonderful.</p>

<p>IS is "worth" every penny (every photog needs to decide what dollar value to put on the word "worth" in that sentence). I wouldn't buy a lens without it if it was available.</p>

<p>The issue is, as you mentioned, that to get it on this lens costs an extra $500 USD. I personally think it's outrageous of Canon to charge $500 for IS on this lens (or any other lens), but it doesn't matter what I think....they'll do it anyway. :-)</p>

<p>If that extra $500 is an issue for you like it is for me, start to hunt around for third party lenses with IS in this zoom range and compare the quality with the Canon. If you're happy with it, get the third party lens. If you're not, then there's no choice but to ante up the money for the Canon.</p>

<p>In the end though, to answer your core question, IS is definitely a great technology that I personally wouldn't be willing to do without. I wrote about my reasons why on this post from my blog:</p>

<p><a href="http://jtophoto.blogspot.com/2010/04/camera-shake-and-motion-blur-be-damned.html">http://jtophoto.blogspot.com/2010/04/camera-shake-and-motion-blur-be-damned.html</a></p>

<p>I hope you find this feedback helpful.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find myself shooting frequently at the limits of equipment and light. When IS saves a shot it is wonderful. I guess since I'm an amateur the money I spend on IS is a luxury. I don't miss IS on my 10-22 and 24-70. I've used Zeiss lenses without IS also and love them. <br>

I'm using a 70-200 2.8 IS II for a couple of weeks and can't imagine this range without IS.<br>

Check out this link to some high quality used lenses... might be just what you are looking for.<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/buy">http://www.lensrentals.com/buy</a><br>

I rented many a lens from them and just a bought a used 300 2.8... (with IS)<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Richard<br>

<br /></p>

<p>What do you shoot?<br /><br />For 80% of my shots with this lens; I don't need IS. But for that other 20%. . . .<br>

If the money is that tight => Huge expensive L glass is the wrong choice. It IS just a HOBBY you said. Consider the 70-300/IS. Many speak highly of this lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Consider the 70-300/IS. Many speak highly of this lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>yes, this 70-300 IS is great</p>

<p>Thank you for all your advice. The 70-300 is this the canon model?<br>

While we are talking of alternatives, can anyone suggest a lens capable of rivaling the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM that doesn't cost quite as much? Perhaps a solid third party alternative?</p>

<p>Damian,</p>

<p>I went through the same thing last year, when I was deciding between the 70-200 f/4 with and without IS. bought it with IS, and I don't regret it, despite the extra cost. (Unlike one poster, I have no idea what it costs to build IS into a lens, so I have no opinion about whether Canon is charging too much. )</p>

<p>I suggest you think about two things in making the decision. One is how you are going to use the lens. If you are going to use a tripod or even a monopod much of the time, for example, you might find less value in IS (it has no value at all with a tripod, of course). If you are going to do handheld shots, it's another matter. The second issue is simply focal length. You did not say what camera you are using, but 200mm is quite long, and on a crop-sensor camera like mine, it is equivalent to a 320mm on a 35mm camera. The old rule of thumb is a shutter speed no faster than 1/FL, where FL is the 35mm equivalent focal length, so that means when racked out, I would need enough light for at least 1/320. Moreover, if you add a 1.4x teleconverter, which I sometimes do, you are dealing with a focal length of 280 or 448 mm. What speed you needs depends on your technique and stability, but I know from decades of experience that for me, these rules of thumb are about right. So that clinched the deal for me. Without IS, I simply would not be able to do some of the handheld work I do with that lens. In contrast, I don't often miss IS with my 28-75mm Tamron, although for a lens of that length, I will probably buy IS next time if it is available in a reasonable lens.</p>

<p>BTW, from my relatively brief experience, I'd say that this lens lives up to its stellar reviews and reputation.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I'm a tripod shooter 99.9% of the time. IS does not matter to me. I think trying to use IS, even a fast shutter speeds, to match the stability of a tripod is a gamble every time. I also use MLU to further remove sources of vibration, even at fast shutter speeds. I do everything that I can to achieve maximum stability. IS is a godsend if you handhold, but that's still a poor substitute for a tripod, IMO. On the other hand, you lose significant flexibility when using a tripod, and the shooting is a lot slower (which, to me, is a blessing).</p>

I use the non-IS version of the f/4 70-200 lens, and it is a fine performer. The IS version was not available when I

bought mine. Although I most often shoot from a tripod, if I were replacing my current lens I would certainly get the IS

version since there are times when I must hand hold the camera.

 

Dan

<p>I'm 100% with Mark Kissel's comments!<br>

I shoot both with and without a tripod, but for hand held, the IS is invaluable.<br>

I too wish all my lenses had IS! Actually, I wish they all had the newer generation IS!<br>

Jim j.</p>

<p>Is is worth it on the 70-200mm f4, but is not necessarily worth it on lenses of shorter focal length in my opinion. I have to say though, that although I have the 70-200mm IS, I could survive without the IS on the 5dMKII since its high ISO performance is so good. It depends somewhat on your camera body. </p>

Seeing as this is a hobby and by your own admission you are loathe to spend 850 quid on the IS version, I would very seriously consider Canon's EF 70-300 IS. Not only is it far cheaper, it also gains you an additional 100mm of reach *and* is image stabilised. Before you go spending your bonus, a few questions for you: What camera do you currently have? What lenses do you have? Have you set any long-term photographic goals as far as style? You may well be better served by a getting totally different set of lenses altogether...

<p>The new Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for the Canon mount seems to be getting quite good reviews and is slightly less expensive than the comparable Canon model. I'm considering buying this lens myself. </p>

<p>The Tamron auto focus on this lens is supposed to be quite a bit faster than the Canon as well because the Canon 70-300 does not use Canon's best USM system. The Tamron might be worth a look....</p>

<p>Thanks for all your advice. I think there are some excellent points here which make me question my choice of lens in the first place, so I set up a different thread here to focus more on the <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Xo7D">actual choice of lens</a>:</p>

 

<p>Damian, <br>

Something that no one has pointed out is that the two lenses are optically different. The IS version is superior in image quality even with both on a tripod and IS turned off.<br>

I've done quite a bit of testing/comparing as of late as I'm looking to replace a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 70-200 f/4. Fortunately I have friends who own both versions of the f/4 lens so I was able to make direct comparisons.<br>

I'd really recommend the f/4L IS. My wife has the 70-300IS that was suggested by another poster and the 70-200 IS with a 1.4x extender (280mm) is still sharper.<br>

Go for it.</p>

<p>JD</p>

<p>Damian<br>

I would take the Canon 70 -300mm (not the 75-300mm) My 70-300 does have IS onit. Quite frankly I am a tripod shooter most of the time as well. There are many articles out there saying that even on a tripod to shoot with IS on. I go either way. It is a nice smooth lens and I have never had a problem with mine. I myself have used Tamron and Sigma in the past. Needless to say all I have in my bag now is Canon. Other brands to me just dont add up, in either construction or quality of photo. Of course, this is just my opinion and experience.</p>

<p>I have the IS and love it and use it a good bit; however, the main worry is out at 200mm when you need to shoot at shutter speeds under 1/200-second. Since you have a tripod, then you can fix that without IS. IS is indeed expensive relative to the lens cost of this lens. I'd hate for you to miss out on the wonderful sharpness and usefulness of this lens just because you can't afford the IS, so I vote for going ahead without the IS and being aware of when you'll need to lug the tripod along.</p>

<p>A couple of years ago i bought a Sony a700 just for the fact that it was great camera and it has an in boby stabilizer,so now all of my leses are stabilized when not on a tripod,it works great whatever you decide to do...</p>

<p>If you are watching the cost consider the Sigma 50-200mm F4-56 DC OS it is about $159 with stabilization at adorama and B&H photo. Not an L series but not bad either.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>The Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USD lens is definitely worth a look. I have recently bought one and IMO it is much better than the Canon 70-300 IS. Its cheaper, optically it is at least as good as the Canon and probably better, the build quality is better, it uses real ring USM for fast focus accurate focus, and the VC works really well.<br>

Basically now that Tamron has released this lens, I see no reason for anyone, anywhere ever to buy the Canon 70-300 IS ever again.</p>