IS IS performance of 70-200L IS f/4 vs 70-200L IS f/2.8 vs 100-400L f/4.5-5.6

[matthias_meixner2]

Hello all!

 

These three lenses are equipped with different versions of IS. While for the

70-200L IS f/4 Canon claims a 4-stop shake correction, this is 3 stops for the

70-200L IS f/2.8 and only 2 stops for the 100-400L. So far the theory goes.

 

Has anyone done some tests if this is really what you would see in real world

usage? Does the newer IS generation of the 70-200L IS f/4 really compensate for

the slower max aperture compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 when it comes to camera

shake? Does the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4TC really have a 2-stop advantage over the

100-400L at say 280mm?

[steve torelli]

I think it should be noted that Canon qualifies it's claim for the effectiveness of IS with the words "up to", as in "up to 3 or 4 stops".

 

I would imagine that it would have a lot to do with the individual's technique and that the stops shouldn't be taken as a hard, fast number.

Good luck.

[Stock-Photos]

I don't know what version of IS the 24-105 L has, and it's certainly wider and less prone to shake than the others you mention. I created the following slide show which indicates shutter speed for all of these hand held, nothing to lean on, shots.

ISO was set at 400. Had the lens not been an IS lens, the majority of the images would have been blurred beyond usable.

 

http://www.slidescanning123.com/route-1-saugus/

[bryantan]

Wow, low-light galore. Very nice shots. Maybe I should change my opinion that the 24-70 doesn't need IS. But then again, the weight would be so much that I'd be screaming for a faster prime to do night photography with.

[stillbound]

There is an interesting article in pop photo this weak about in camera vs. lens based IS and they claim that on average the lens based are better by one stop than the body based...

 

In regards to the actual post - I own the 2.8 IS and have shot the 4 IS - the IS in the f4 is definitely a bit better but you can't replace the effect of the 2.8. The long and short of it is this - if you A. can afford the 2.8, B. Need the "bokeh" of the 2.8 - buy the 2.8. If not..the f4 is an amazing feat of engineering

The second part is I HATE the 100 - 400 with it's ridiculous push pull zoom - this is a lens that I really, really, wish canon would redo...

 

JC

[jason_hall4]

Not really sure what you are wanting to know here exactly, however,I own the 70-200 f2.8IS and the 100-400IS. Never measured to know just how many stop inprovement I get as others have said it is very dependent on the individual.

 

I shot the 100-400 the other day at an outdoor birthday party at a local park. I just took a look at them paying attention to shutter speed. All shots were in the shade with a 580EX as fill flash. with the shutter 1/100 and up, the shots a very sharp with zoom between 350mm to 400mm on average. Several 1/80sec shots were rather sharp. down to 1/40 and 1/60 they rather soft but good enough to put on the non edited CD.

 

So my recent experience is that if you can get enough light to get 1/100sec with f5.6 you can do well with the 100-400 off hand.

 

Jason

[William Michael]

>>> Does the newer IS generation of the 70-200L IS f/4 really compensate for the slower max aperture compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 when it comes to camera shake? Does the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4TC really have a 2-stop advantage over the 100-400L at say 280mm? <<<

 

I think this sentence is dangerously mixing (implied) technical specifications and wanting conclusive tangible comparisons.

 

There are just too many variables.

 

Having stated that: the so called `versions` of IS in these three lenses, based on what I have researched and my use of the 70 to 200F2.8L IS, will have far less effect on the outcome of the image than other technicalities of the lenses and the operator`s technique.

 

If the question is centred upon choice of purchase of one of these lenses, then consider assessing all other criteria way above the question: `which version of IS is it?`.

 

WW

[tapani]

Joseph: "I HATE the 100 - 400 with it's ridiculous push pull zoom" - just for the record (in case Canon is reading), I love it, especially the zoom mechanism. If Canon could improve its IS or make it smaller or lighter that would be nice, but the zoom mechanism is fine. (OK, it sucks dust, but so do ring zooms that extend the barrel, and building a 100-400 with internal zoom would mean it'd always be as long as it now is fully extended.)

[jason_hall4]

I like the push pull zoom as well, for the record. ;o)

 

I have purchased the 70-200 f2.8IS as well with the 2xTC.

The idea is the the 70-200/2.8 will much more useful than the 100-400 due to it speed. Making if useful for indoors. However I don't want to loose the 400mm reach. I can't afford to have both I am not carring both. So the 70-200/2.8 and 2xTC is a nice combo that retains sharp auto focus (though a little slower). It also brings it to f5.6 but that is what the 100-400 is at 400 so it is like haveing both lens in hand.

 

I like the 100-400, just think I can use the 70-200 more due to its low light ability.

 

Anyone want to buy a 100-400 ;o)

Lightly used!

 

Jason