Canon 70-200mmf4 IS or NOT

[thomas_brabant1]

I am using a 30D. I need a replacement for a 180 Leica APO Tylet 3.4, 1970 or

so vintage, which I loved on Lecia R 7 and 4, but just is too hard to focus

quickly on Canon even with adaptor.

 

I am deliberating between 70-200mm Canon f4 IS or not. The IS is almost 2

times the cost of the non IS. I want this lens to shoot pictures of animal

life and horses (I live in Kentucky). They move around. I need an exposure

of about 350 a sec to capture this. Am I wasting my money on the IS? (I know

that IS does NOT affect subject motion)

 

Thanks, Tom

[leopoldstotch]

Yes, you will basically be wasting your money on IS. It will allow you to shoot at SLOWER shutter speeds to compensate for camera, which is the opposite of useful to you. IS will be useful when handholding in dimmer light, but if you use a monopod with it, you're pretty much good to go. Best to just get the non-IS version, since its a much better value.

[mark_chappell]

If you are always shooting at high shutter speeds (1/350 or faster), the IS may be of marginal

use. However, Photozone and some other test sites indicate that the IS version is

substantially sharper -- at least when photographing test targets. I've owned both and my

subjective impression is that, indeed, the IS version is better, but the non-IS version is still a

very fine lens.

[thomas_brabant1]

Thanks for the comebacks. Is the the IS version any heavier than the non IS? I think the non IS weighs in at 25 or so ounces. What about the IS?

 

Tom

[mendel_leisk]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=150

[alexdi]

You might also consider the 70-200/2.8. While it's overshadowed by the two IS lenses in that range, it's very sharp, a stop faster than the 70-200/4, and only about $150 more than the 70-200/4 IS.

 

DI

[eos 10 fan]

IS (mode 2) will help with panning shots and you will use IS when shooting motionless mammals at dawn/dusk... Better to have, than have not.

 

Size is equal, the weight difference is 55g. http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

 

--

[gdanmitchell]

If find that for shooting handheld IS is _often_ useful, even at higher shutter speeds and

especially if you print large where slight motion induced fuzziness will be more noticeable.

IS is even more useful when you use longer lenses like the 70-200 since you are more

likely to find yourself shooting at the theoretical limit of slow shutter speed for handheld

work.

 

I currently own and very much l like the non-IS version of this lens and am seriously

considering moving to the IS version. I also use the 24-105 IS lens and definitely find the

feature well worth the extra cost.

 

Aside from the cost, there is essentially no significant downside to getting the IS version of

the lens. Regarding cost, the additional increment for the IS feature is about the same for

many of the Canon L lenses including this one.

 

By the way, slrgear.com recently rated the IS version of this lens as one of the very best

lenses they have ever tested.

[chinoloco93]

I think getting the IS can still come in handy. You have a fast shutter speed requirement and with a 200mm zoom setting, you are at about the shutter speed = 1/zoom rule of thumb on the crop camera for handholding the camera. When you decide to slow the lens a little more to capture motion, you will appreciate the IS for eliminating blur from your hand shake and only caption motion from your subject. If you want to "Stop" everything if your pics, then IS will not be as much of a benefit to you. If you want to have some motion blur as horses in motion, then Mode 2 can help you pan. In some lighting conditions though like later afternoon, you might not have enough light to properly expose at 1/350 shutter and then IS will be your friend. I would go along with Dave on getting the 2.8 instead of the 4. I have the 2.8 IS and wouldn't be without it.

[William Michael]

Given the parameters of the question and dealing only with those given as a basis for the answer: Yes, in this case IS is a waste of money.

 

I made a similar decision based on my intended usage of the 70 to 200mmF2.8L.

 

This lens was purchased to capture competitive swimmers, essentially and thereafter other field sports events.

 

I require 1/320th to capture breaststroke and 1/400th (or, for an high stroke rate swimmer, 1/500th) to adequately capture butterfly backstroke and freestyle.

 

Based on these shooting parameters I choose the non IS version.

 

This decision of mine included the usefulness of IS mode 2 when panning fast moving subjects: I decided such an application would be very rare and the extra money was put towards two fast primes.

 

If one wishes to take into account ifs, buts and maybes, then obviously the answer will be different, but within the confines of the question asked I think this cut and dried answer: it would be hard to mount a logical argument to buy an IS lens.

 

It is much easier to mount an argument that you seriously consider the F2.8L version, and I agree in this regard with those who have suggested it.

 

If you NEED 1/320th and if the there isn`t much light then the extra stop sure is handy.

 

WW

[mars c]

Not only you'll get IS in the newer version, but you'll also get weather sealing. I still find it a litle overpriced ,though.

 

If I were you, I'd buy the IS version, so that I wont ever have to regret not having IS when I need it. Especially the yummy 4 stop IS in the newer version :)

[alan_chan4]

Buy once and buy something useful. 1/350s could be marginal for handholding depends on your phyical condition of that day with 200mm on 30D. IS would be handy sooner or later. 2X the price, yes, but good investment in the long run. It will be far cheaper than the constant upgrade.

[alecu]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LMC4

 

It's not only the IS. The optical quality is the best Canon produced for a zoom up to know.

[steve torelli]

If you're gonna spend the money, get the 2.8 version. IS comes in handy some of the time, faster glass is always handy. The f/4 IS version of this lens apparently tests as sharper than the non-IS version but not because it has IS. With the high ISO performance of Canon's current lineup of camera bodies, IS or not is becoming a six of one, half-a-dozen of the other thing IMO. Bumping up the ISO a bit to get the shutter speed is a lot cheaper than buying the equivalent IS lens. If you're shooting with enough shutter speed and maintain any kind of technique, IS doesn't enter into the equation. It's great under the right set of circumstances, but in your case I don't see any advantage to it. Good luck.

[gdanmitchell]

"IS comes in handy some of the time, faster glass is always handy."

 

I suppose the opposite is equally true: "Faster class comes in handy some of the time, IS is always handy." :-)

 

Here's a way to look at it - and depending upon your needs one could reasonably select any of the excellent Canon 70-200mm L lenses...

 

IS can be useful if you do a lot of hand held shooting. It compensates to a useful extent for motion blur caused by camera motion, potentially

sharpening shots at "normal" shutter speeds and permitting use of significantly slower shutter speeds without a tripod. It does nothing to stop subject

motion - in fact its use at low shutter speeds with moving subjects will create more subject motion blur.

 

An extra stop of aperture (e.g. - the f/2.8 versus f/4 lenses) lets you use a shutter speed that is twice as fast in low light conditions or in other

circumstances in which you want a slightly faster shutter speed. This is a small change but it can make the difference in marginal situations.

 

When you think about the shutter speeds that you use, keep in mind that 1/200 second (one over focal length) is at the low end of acceptable hand

held shutter speeds with a 200mm lens... on full frame. Many believe that you should apply the crop factor conversion to this rule of thumb if you are

using a crop sensor camera. If you believe this (I do) the slowest typical shutter speed for handheld shots at 200mm on a crop sensor camera would be

1/320 second. In terms of hand held exposures, shooting at 1/350 on crop with a 200mm lens is somewhat equivalent to shooting at 1/60 second with

a "normal" lens on full frame/35mm. When you look at it this way, using IS at 1/350 second it seems like it may be more useful than you would first

think. In my experience it is useful.

 

If in doubt, and if the cost isn't a problem, there is no downside to getting the IS version of this excellent lens.

 

Dan

[alecu]

Taking the IS out of the discution, take a look at the optical performance of the f4IS compared with the f28.

 

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=242&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=0

 

Browse between diferent f values and focal lengths. After that compare the f4IS to the f2.8IS.

[awindsor]

Bear in mind that you can couple either 70-200/4 with a 1.4x extender. The resulting 100-280/5.6 lens is optically very good (the only downside is AF speed) especially stopped down one stop. With the crop factor of the camera the long end has a field of view equivalent to roughly 450mm. The rule of thumb would be 1/500s but I am not confident of getting sharp handheld shots with long lenses using only the reciprocal rule. I typically use a tripod for my 70-200/4 + 1/4x extender combination. I have a 300/4 IS which I will happily shoot handheld. The IS makes a big difference at the long end.

 

Having said all of that have you considered the 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The build quality is not quite a nice and the front element rotates during focusing but optically it is supposed to be the equal of the old 70-200/4 and you get 200mm-300mm reach and IS. The price is not as ludicrous as that of the 70-200/4 IS. The only downside might be if you rely on AF Servo to track a fast moving horse - the AF is not as speedy as the 70-200/4 by all accounts.

[DickArnold]

I have had a 70-200 2.8L no IS for ten years in which I have done a few hundred sporting events, quite a few weddings, lots of dull, routine newspaper work with this lens. It is still sharp and going strong. I have IS on a 100-400L because it came that way. I don't have any shutter speeds but I have taken hundreds and hundreds of pics with 70-200. I think it the best lens I ever owned and that includes medium format. If you want the most for the least I would buy it. I have never missed the IS. I have used it for portraits and studio work as well. At a wedding I dropped it while changing lenses three feet onto a concrete walk. It didn't skip a beat. If you want long life, reliability and sharp pictures with good color in marginal light it is a damn good buy. That is, if you amortize the cost over ten years. I don't buy lenses to do specific things, I use them for everything. That way the only buying objective is to cover the focal length range.

[DickArnold]

I have had a 70-200 2.8L no IS for ten years in which I have done a few hundred sporting events, quite a few weddings, lots of dull, routine newspaper work with this lens. It is still sharp and going strong. I have IS on a 100-400L because it came that way. I don't have any shutter speeds but I have taken hundreds and hundreds of pics with 70-200. I think it the best lens I ever owned and that includes medium format. If you want the most for the least I would buy it. I have never missed the IS. I have used it for portraits and studio work as well. At a wedding I dropped it while changing lenses three feet onto a concrete walk. It didn't skip a beat. If you want long life, reliability and sharp pictures with good color in marginal light it is a damn good buy. That is, if you amortize the cost over ten years. I don't buy lenses to do specific things, I use them for everything. That way the only buying objective is to cover the focal length range.

[DickArnold]

I have had a 70-200 2.8L no IS for ten years in which I have done a few hundred sporting events, quite a few weddings, lots of dull, routine newspaper work with this lens. It is still sharp and going strong. I have IS on a 100-400L because it came that way. I don't have any shutter speeds but I have taken hundreds and hundreds of pics with 70-200. I think it the best lens I ever owned and that includes medium format. If you want the most for the least I would buy it. I have never missed the IS. I have used it for portraits and studio work as well. At a wedding I dropped it while changing lenses three feet onto a concrete walk. It didn't skip a beat. If you want long life, reliability and sharp pictures with good color in marginal light it is a damn good buy. That is, if you amortize the cost over ten years. I don't buy lenses to do specific things, I use them for everything. That way the only buying objective is to cover the focal length range. Buy the way William W, at 75 I don't photograph swimming, I still do it. I did a mile workout this AM in 36 minutes.

[thomas_brabant1]

Thanks so much for all this information. I need to read it all again and chew on it. One fact that I did not plug in is that I have a Leica 280 f2.8 which I have been able to use pretty well with my Canan 30d with a converter. For some reason I find that I can focus that lens pretty effectively, as opposed to the 3.5 180, which is what I want to replace with the Canon zoom. For that reason, I have pretty much decided against the 70-300 zoom, and don't particulary want to bulk of the 70-200 f 2.8. I do admit they were good suggestions. But at age 73 I don't want any more BIG lenses.

 

And I also want to use 70-200 some at lower zoom levels. I have nothing over a 55mm which I can effectively use on the Canon. I have a 1976 vintage 90 mm Summicron which I have used with adapter, but find the results rather soft too often. I just need a zoom to fill that gap.

 

Another factor I probably should have mentioned is that I am not a pro--I don't HAVE to get the shot. And I can wait for fairly pretty weather.

 

Thanks again for all of the well thought out suggestions and comments

[DickArnold]

Sorry about the triple post. I don't know what happened

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I suppose the opposite is equally true: "Faster class comes in handy some of the time, IS is always handy." :-)</i></p><p>Except when you take into consideration the parameters presented by the original poster, where he specifically stated he would be photographing animals that "move around". In that case, IS will only be useful if he needs to pan. Since he expects to be using shutter speeds of around 1/350 sec, I doubt he'll be panning. An f/2.8 lens (compared to the f/4 IS) will allow him to cut his exposure in half, while maintaining the same ISO. All else being equal, I think he would much prefer 1/800 sec, given that you are unlikely to see camera motion blur at that speed.</p>

[William Michael]

>>> I think he would much prefer `1/800 sec`, given that you are unlikely to see camera motion blur at that speed. <<<

 

or even `1/640th sec`.

 

:)

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

I do much better math when the sun is out. ;-)