One of those threads...

<p>Quick, hopefully straightforward question. I'm considering a 70-200mm at some point. I doubt I'd need an f/2.8 version as I would hardly use it inside or in low light (I think, at least...). So the option is of course the f/4 or f/4 IS.<br>

I have a 40D. the question is, would it be hopeless to try to handhold a non IS lens at ~320mm and expect good images? Obviously external and camera setting variables come in to play, but just for a general idea...</p>

<p>Since you mention that you're not likely to use it indoors, that suggests that you'll usually be out in good light. If you can use an ISO and aperture that lets you get away with 1/500th or better (ideally 1/1000th or better), then you certainly can hold that focal length while using it on an APS-C format body.</p>

<p>The popular rule of thumb, if I'm not mistaken, would suggest that at 320mm, a 1/320 second shutter speed and a "normal" stance would make camera shake acceptable on an 8x10 print. I've had limited success with a very steady stance and cutting that rule in half. So for me, I would want IS if I needed to shoot that lens zoomed out and slower than 1/320sec.</p>

<p>If you can afford it the 70-200 F4 IS is a great lens. I have the 70-200 F2.8 non IS (it is sharper than the mk I IS) and the 70-200 f4 IS. The IQ of the two lenses is identical and the F4 lens is much more portable. I believe the F4 IS has a much more modern optical design than the F4 non IS but I have never used the non IS F4. This link shows IQ<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 were you, Seth, I wouldn't consider the non-IS version of the 70-200, particularly since the IQ of the IS version is clearly superior, and you're using an APS-C body.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS is by far my most used walkabout lens (for my full frame and crop bodies). I also have the 135/2 L and 200/2.8 L II, but find that I use the zoom over the primes in all but the lowest light. It delivers prime-level IQ, and is virtually as light and compact as either of the primes.</p>

<p>Thanks to all the responses, they were extremely helpful (and fast)! It seems apparent to me that the IS version is the one I should be saving for. This is what I assumed, but there was a part of me that just wanted to get the non IS f/4 since I could get it sooner 0:-). I'll be smart and save for what I would really be satisfied with.</p>

<p>If you're using it to shoot action/sports, you'll probably be shooting 1/500 and up anyway, so IS won't do you much, if any, good. If you're shooting things that are relatively still, the IS is a wonderful thing to have.</p>

<p>I use 2 40Ds and I have the older 70-200 non IS version. My BEST lens no doubt, great bokeh, superb for sports and wildlife. I use a monopod for sports when needed and it is also a great portrait lens. Would I like IS? Sure but it's not necessary.</p><div></div>

<p>Seth - Technique often trumps technology, I've found that with a proper handhold & self bracing , at telephoto lengths (up to 320mm easily), even 1/160 and 1/100 can easily and reliabily achieve critical sharpness. Many of the same techniques I learned in the army to fire a rifle can be applied successfully. Don't get me wrong, IS is a great feature, but it's benefits are not a panacea, and personally, I wouldn't miss out on a single days shooting simply to have the extra feature. Considering the IQ of the entire 70-200L range, you'll be missing out!</p>

<p>If the difference in time is considerable before you'd be able to afford the IS vs the nonIS, I'd look for a used nonIS to fill that niche for the time being, then when your other funds are adequate, resell the non-IS, and buy the IS version.</p>

<p>You can easily hand hold this lens in the 1/100th to 1/200th range with some awareness that you need to be steady. It's nice and light and comfortable to hold. However, IF you can afford the IS, get it, because the lens becomes much more versatile.</p>

<p>Like Mark Pierlot I have the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 135/2 and 200mm/2.8. The 70-200mm f4IS is simply outstanding. Even when I am using the primes I am always wondering whether I shouldn't just use the zoom-but I use the primes for shooting dance where the extra speed is useful. The f2.8 zooms are great too but very large and heavy and for most shooting I find the f2.8 is not missed. I have to say that with the 5dMkII I could probably do without the IS too on my f4 zoom, so don't fail to consider the 70-200f4 non IS.</p>

<p>Wow, thanks again for all the great responses. I guess based on the responses It seems to me as if the non IS version is certainly all I need, and that the extra money would be better spent saving for another lens or addition to my kit.<br>

I've presently got the 17-85mm and I'm pretty happy with it. I have no complaints and have taken some good shots with it. However I do find myself looking for more focal length and although the image quality is suitable, I'm afraid I might be a little critical in wanting something better.<br>

In time I'd like to get the 70-200 for to satisfy my telephoto itch, and then a 24-70 as an upgrade to the 17-85.<br>

I got my 40D a couple weeks ago and I'm already bitten by the bug :-X</p>

<p>Seth, you'll be happy with the IQ of any of Canon's 70-200mm. They're all jewels.</p>

<p>Also don't neglect to consider the 70-300 IS, which has advantages and disadvantages relative to the 70-200/4:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>IS</li>

<li>longer reach</li>

<li>a bit slower on the long end</li>

<li>nearly as sharp, especially on a crop body (quite impressive, really)</li>

<li>relatively cheap</li>

<li>front lens element rotates (bad)</li>

<li>cheaper build, with telescoping barrels</li>

<li>more compact</li>

</ul>

<p>I shoot many older MF long lenses that naturally have no IS.</p>

<p>But I think it's a mistake to buy a modern AF telephoto zoom lens without IS.</p>

<p>If technique "trumps" technology (a dubious assertion), then think how far ahead you'll be when you employ <em>both</em> technique and technology. IS is worth the extra speed of the f/2.8 all by itself.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd save for the F4 IS. It's optically better than the F4 non-IS, and there will be times you will be thankful for the the IS even if you don't feel that way now. One such example would be a future body upgrade, the IS will come in handy when used on a higher MP sensor. Others would of course include expansion of the conditions under which you use the lens. The 70-300 Zoom mentioned above is a decent budget lens. However, having owned and used one, I feel it doesn't compare well to the 70-200 series especially when cropping. It's also a full stop slower at the long end. </p>

<p>Dunno... I own both lenses, and they both have their time and place. The 70-300 doesn't carry like a long pipe bolted to the front of my camera, and it attracts less attention, so it makes a better carry lens. The 70-200/4IS has internal focus and zoom, which is great when dust and moisture are at issue. I also prefer the bokeh for candid portraiture. The 70-300 really does hold up quite well, optically, in comparison to the 70-200.</p>

<p>Given a choice between a 70-200/4 non-IS and a 70-300IS, I'd choose the 70-300 hands-down for the very reasons JDM cites. (I don't ordinarily buy non-IS lenses anymore.) Then again, I usually shoot things that don't move much. Maybe if I were doing it all over again, I'd get the new 70-300 L version. ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The popular rule of thumb, if I'm not mistaken, would suggest that at 320mm, a 1/320 second <a id="itxthook2" rel="nofollow" href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ZMSH">shutter speed</a>"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's for FF non-IS. For crop, add in the extra crop factor, so for the above example, at 1.6x, it would be a little over 1/500s. Secondly, that minimum will only counters hand shake. If the object moving, then you need to increase shutter speed accordingly. If you steady or brace yourself, hold your breath and squeeze it helps. If you fire a burst of three, and keep steady, the first shot will succuum to your downward shutter movement, and the second or third shot is usually better. </p>

<p>IS vs non IS is partly a question of what you shoot. The majority of my lenses do not have IS (16-35II, 24-70, 17 F4 etc...) but I like it on my 70-200 F4. I have two 70-200s - the non IS F2.8 that I have had for a long time and use mainly for action sports - where IS would be of little help and the 70-200 F4 Is which I use for general use. This lens has great IS as it uses the latest version a 200m 1/40th and 1/50th work fine (with good technique) and I have even got away with 1/15th. So if you use this as a general lens and take low light photos then IS is good to have. </p>

<p>Lots of back and forth! Fortunately I've got some time to decide! I do know that I intend to get a FF body at some point in the NOT so near future (couple years I'm sure). But I still want to make sure I am making the proper investments, even though I know there is a lot of trial and error in determining the proper kit for yourself.<br>

I may have some opportunities in the area to try these lenses out, so I'm sure that could be a huge help.</p>

<p>There are times that you will need the IS. When you use a tripod, you will not need it, but the beauty of the lens is how versatile it really is hand-held. If you use the 2.8 IS version with the 5DII, you have aperture, IS, and high ISO with low noise working with you to allow you to use the shutter speed that you will need to freeze the shot.</p>

<p>I know that the 5DII (or even the 5D) with the 70-200 2.8 IS represents a substantial hunk of change, but it is a sometimes miraculous combo for shots not requiring more than 200mm. Only you can decide if it is worth the sacrifice, but I have gotten shots in dark theaters with that combination that I could never have thought about getting otherwise. Here is a not-so-great picture that I nonetheless was at least able to get in a nearly dark theater--one stage light was functional that night. I could have done even better with the 5D II had I needed a real boost in ISO, but when this shot was made the 5D was my full-frame camera:</p>

<p><a href="../photo/6684191&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/6684191&size=md</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot many older MF long lenses that naturally have no IS.<br /><br />But I think it's a mistake to buy a modern AF telephoto zoom lens without IS.<br /><br />If technique "trumps" technology (a dubious assertion), then think how far ahead you'll be when you employ <em>both</em> technique and technology. IS is worth the extra speed of the f/2.8 all by itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely with JDM. I see no good reason why one wouldn't buy a longer telephoto with IS if one could afford it, provided that its IQ were at least as good as comparable lenses without IS.</p>

<p>Old rule of thumb for not showing the "jitters" when hand holding is the shutter speed should at least equal the focal length of the lens. So for "safe" shooting at 350mm, the shutter speed should be at least 1/350 or more commonly 1/500 at least. However with the modern stabilization features such as IS you can shoot at considerably lower shutter speeds depending on skill level or coffee intake:) So if lens quality is equal and if price allows it, I would go with the IS version if you want to hand hold, and really, who doesn't at times?</p>