tim_kong Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Wanted to know if this lens is worth the upgrade from the non-IS version. Can someone let me know if the resolution and sharpness comparable, if not better than the non-IS version? YOur honest opinion/comment is much appreciated. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_john_asuncion Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 based on the reviews I checked, they have a very minimal difference with comes to the image quality but the IS version is much faster than the non-IS version plus it also gives you the ability to lessesn image blur even without the use of tri-pod. So in short if you have the budget, go for the IS version. But if you have limited budget, go for the non-IS version and get yourself a tri-pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_john_asuncion Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 based on the reviews I checked, they have a very minimal difference with comes to the image quality but the IS version is much faster than the non-IS version plus it also gives you the ability to lessesn image blur even without the use of tri-pod. So in short if you have the budget, go for the IS version. But if you have limited budget, go for the non-IS version and get yourself a tri-pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_lau3 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I do not have the non-IS version but I do compare it against the 200/f2.8 and 180/f3.5 prime lenses on 5D (on tripod with IS switched off). The 70-200/f4 IS equals to 200/f2.8 at equivalent aperture and slightly better than 180/f3.5 for distant objects (buildings). However for close objects (newspaper), the 180/f3.5 wins with a significant margin. The 70-200/f4 IS also holds it quality very well with the Canon 1.4X. I compare it with the 300/f4 IS. At f11 (2 stops down the max aperture) the combination equals the 300/f4 in sharpness and contrast, but does show some CA (red fringing) at extreme edge. This CA is absent from both 200/f2.8 and 180/f3.5 with 1.4X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I found with my 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) that I was not able to handhold the camera and achieve the sharpness the lens was capable of. On a tripod the results were very sharp indeed. Handheld shots always showed a little blur due to camera shake. This meant smaller prints and less cropping was available. If you are going to be shoting handheld and can afford it I would recommend the IS version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 From this test on the-digital-picture, the new 70-200 f4.0L IS is excellent and noticably sharper than the older non-IS version. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=104&Camera=9&LensComp=404 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saurabh1 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I have IS version and I found that shots taken indoor with IS switched on are significantly better than same shots taken with IS switched off, e.g., cloth texture would show up clearly with IS switched on. Thus, contrast is much better due to IS. Also for people photography it is not always practical to use a tripod so I find IS very useful in such situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 <p><i>Wanted to know if this lens is worth the upgrade from the non-IS version.</i></p>Have you decided that IS will benefit you? If so, yes. If not, then you need to determine that first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 <p><a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/">Digital Outback Photo</a> got a copy of the IS version and liked it a lot - they report excellent optical quality. <p>The answer to the "is it worth it" question is one that you'll have to figure out. It is pretty much entirely a question of whether the IS feature is worth the extra cost for the sort of photography you do. (There is little question that the IS works as advertised.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Robert Can you explain what you mean by: "the IS version is much faster than the non-IS version" They are both f4, so you can't be refering to that. They both have a ring USM so I'd be quite surprised if the speed of focusing was much different, since the non-IS lens has pretty fast focusing. Other than that I can't figure out what else you could trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_kong Posted November 24, 2006 Author Share Posted November 24, 2006 I am using the non-IS version right now. Though I am happy with the performance of the lens in terms of speed and IQ, I also came up with a lot of "blurred" shots, most likely due to camera shake, when taken without tripod. I have not used any IS lens before so I just wanted to know how the lens IQ compare to the non-IS version. If its comparable, I would certainly get it. Thanks again for your helpful advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_chi1 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Tim, I don't have the old 70-200 f4L now. But the new 70-200 f4 IS I have now is very sharp. It's the sharpest 70-200 I ever bought, including 4 copies of 70-200 f2.8 IS and one copy of 70-200 f4L. I'd definitely recommend it, unless you already have a very sharp 70-200 f4L and you always shoot with a heavy tripod (so you don't need IS.) Eric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 >> Wanted to know if this lens is worth the upgrade from the non-IS version. 1. "Worth" is a subjective term and mean different things to different people. For example: "Is it worth spending three times as much for a BMW then a Toyota?" 2. Yes... :-) Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 To be honest I have never been impressed with BMWs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I envy you. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 .... Isn't Lexus made by Toyota? At least they are reliable. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now