Getting a Canon 70-200/4 dilemma

[robert_thommes1]

<p>I've researched this for quite a while now. Consensus is that I will notice an IQ improvement with the 70-200/4 lens over that which I get with my 70-300IS USM lens. That's great. However, any advice is almost always accompanied by the comment "but get the IS version of the f4 lens". Unfortunately, my photo equipment budget does not allow for me to spend twice the amount over the non-IS version(which I can barely afford as it is). I'm really not certain just how advantageous the IS of the 70-300 has been for me. I'm not aware of any great increase in keepers as a result of using the IS(which I forget to click on frequently anyway).<br>

So, I'm again coming to you to ask your opinion. In favor of the "L" lens: I'd like the "real"USM and constant manual focusing ability, the constant f4, and 200mm would be long enough. But....if the 70-300 lens will give me very close to the same results, and that's the bottom line for me, I'll forget about the "non-IS" f4 lens.<br>

I'm interested in what you would do, and why. Thanks</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>Try turning off the IS on your current lens and see how it works for you. </p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>If there really is a consensus saying that you will <em>notice</em> an IQ improvement, then the question arises <em>how</em> you will notice it. What do you do with your image files? Also, is the difference big enough to justify an upgrade <em>for you</em>? The L lens is very nice indeed in all kinds of ways, and you state some of them, but it's not nearly as convenient to use as the 70-300 since it's white (and therefore annoyingly visible at times) and quite a lot larger, all this apart from lacking IS.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>I've used the non-IS version for almost 10 years on tens of thousands of photos and it is a stellar lens, never disappoints. For me it's not inconvenient at all. It's light, small, and for me is the most convenient and versatile lens I own. I've never missed having IS and quality only suffers in that you may find yourself using a higher ISO to get a suitable shutter speed. The 70-300 is weak over 200mm, and is outmatched below 200. If quality is your concern I would go with the 70-200 over the 70-300, especially if you use a tripod, which make the IS much less meaningful. I also would read both reviews at the digital picture. As far as comparing the two, he says<br /> <br /> "Those contemplating a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens purchase are typically considering the <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens</a> as well. Priced similarly with an extended focal length range and an excellent implementation of IS, this lens fills many of the same requirements as the 70-200 f/4. I usually recommend the 70-200 f/4 over the 70-300 IS because of its physical and optical advantages, but read the 70-300 review to find out which is better for your needs."</p>

<p>As I read it you already have the 70-300 and this would just be an upgrade. If you're simply thinking of it as an upgrade I would spend the $600 on something that expands your creative potential, like the Canon 100 macro or 15mm fisheye, both about $600.</p>

[charles_clark1]

<p>I use the non-IS 70-200 f4. I really like this lens. However, I am a tripod/monopod shooter (much more tripod than monopod). IS doesn't matter to me. I have not used the 70-300 so I can't compare IQ. <br>

I have used the 70-200 f4 in some very low light situations. One of my favorite photo-hikng spots is a heavily wooded narrow canyon. During the summer, the light on the canyon floor is very low. I routinely see exposures of 20 seconds or more at f11 or f16. The 70-200 still focuses very fast. </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I have been using SLRs since 1959.<br>

For most of those years, no image stabilizer at all although my max was 210mm plus a 2X telextender. I got lots of good pictures.<br>

But when I got my first IS lens I really fell in love with the feature. I still shoot with some old telephotos such as my 500mm reflex lens with a monopod, but I'd <em>personally</em> wait a little longer and save the money for the IS feature before I'd swap the 70-300 for a non-stabilized 70-200.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>I appreciate these early responses. I'm glad to see that a couple of you speak well of the non-IS 70-200/4 version. As I stated earlier, if I were to go that route, it would have to be the non-IS version due to cost. That said....Tommy...I just went and tried my 70-300IS lens with IS turned off. I shot at f8 and ISO400; as it's rather cloudy today. I also tried shooting in both AF and MF....just for kicks. Well...I guess I have my stable, rock-solid days, and my shakey days. This happened to be one of the latter...shakey. With IS off, not so good. With IS on....good. Very noticable differences. I'm sorry to find this out; as I was trying to talk myself into the f4 lens. I seldom use a tripod, but occasionally do use a monopod. But, I guess, I'm not helping my shakey-day problems as much as I could, AND I prefer not to be hampered by using a tripod. </p>

[tdigi]

<p>If thats the case I would either save for the IS version or use the money for something else and just keep your 70-300. maybe an 85 1.8 which is a great short tele for really poor lighting situations. </p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>For reasons that are personal, the $1000 for the IS version just can not and will not happen. Half that amount is all the photo budget can bare...now and in the foreseeable future. I've grown to realize that I must be one of the poorer photographers that grace these pages. Nevertheless, I feel that I do OK with what I have. So I'm happy.</p>

[rayabel]

<p>Keep the money and wait until you have a "no-problem getting the 'L' lens budget". If you can't just spend the money on the lens just for the fun of it or as an expense on a business's profits, then don't spend the money. Use what you have!</p>

 

[w_t1]

<p>i shoot mostly ute soccer and baseball with my 70-200f4 non-IS, I need high shutter speeds so the IS would be useless.</p>

<p>if you care about "consensus" then by all means upgrade. if you're talking about IQ when pixel peeping, then I bow out of that topic</p>

<p> </p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>The 70-200 is one of the best lenses that I ever used. I don't have it anymore as I sold it when I bought the 100-400. If 200 is as long as you need, and you generally have enough shutter speed than it is the best choice. I don't know how this compares with the lens you have already. I would look at your exif data and see what use the IS has been for you, and the photos over 200mm-would you miss that? Don't think that you need expensive gear to make nice photos. For years all I used was the 28-90mm and 75-300 cheap variation lenses. I sold alot of prints with these simple lenses and probably paid for them 20+ times over.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>What subjects do you intend to shoot with the lens? Are you sure you want another zoom?</p>

<p>I'm thinking a fast prime like 100/2 or perhaps a macro lens may be a nice complement to the zoom you have now.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I have the IS version and it is great, but I am not sure I personally find the IS essential. I won't say it is not helpful - particularly when used with a 1.4X teleconverter, but most of the time I shoot it at shutter speeds that are not likely to cause me camera shake anyway. Once you get into action shots of moving things then IS is no use anyway. Nowadays on the 5D MKII ISO 800 is no problem at all and at that speed IS is not essential anyway. The optical excellence of this lens is so good I would recommend getting the non-IS version if the IS is not in your budget.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Robin,<br>

I tend to shoot a lot of my grandkids' sporting events, even indoor hockey(notorious for being poorly lit), which I can get pretty well. I also like to shoot wildlife in parks(not real active), zoos(usually rather inactive), and photo "farms"(super active). 200mm seems Ok for about 80% or even more.<br>

Further, My XS can go only to ISO1600. Yet, I find the 800 and 1600ISO's to turn out just fine, and often without need for any NR. </p>

<p>Thanks for your(and others) comments. </p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>Robert for what you shoot I really think you would enjoy an 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 much more. If your not printing large you can easily crop your image. </p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Tommy, I could probably do OK with a 100mm lens for the sports(even hockey), but feel I would need to go 200mm for any of my critter shooting. The Canon 200mm prime would break my bank, I'm afraid.<br>

Does the 100mm f2 have any decent track record with a 2X TC attached? I'm thinking not. But that would satisfy the reach I'd need.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I tried a 2x with my 70-200 and I did not like the results. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I made this same move a few weeks ago and don't regret it. The IS is great , yes, but the f/4 constant aperture is also great. You do lose some focal length, but the big thing for me was the amazing auto focus. With my 75-300mm, the AF could take a while, but with the 70-200mm it is instant. I would rather get the shot and maybe sacrafice some quality by cropping, than to not get the shot all because my AF was searching. <br>

Also, I use this focal length mostly for wildlife or action. The IS won't help much here. It will keep the camera steady, but it won't stop action, so for me its pretty useless at this focal length. One more thing, the non IS version of the f/4 is a smaller lens and a lot lighter than the other 3 versions. A lot of people actually PREFER this one over the other 3 options because it is easier to carry around all day. Bottom line; Get it, its not a dilemma, you won't regret it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Robert, I think that given your situation, I'd make the best of the 70-300mm you have. I confess my own telephoto in this class is the much worse 75-300mm IS, and I'm putting up with it until I first get my TS-E 17mm and then save enough to go for a 100-400 (hopefully a new, but alas probably not cheaper version).<br>

I too am a little strapped at the moment (daughter in college in Canada, so I pay not only costs but a conversion fee for every dollar spent), so these new babies will have to wait a bit.<br>

However, have you looked at used prices? Some eBay prices seem to be down as low as $1200, although there's a huge range that I don't understand.</p>

[dpassmore]

<p>There is the 200mm f2.8 L that may be within your budget. </p>

<p>I have used the 70-200 f4 non-IS for the last 1.5 years with no problems on my 40D. Love it! I shoot mostly my kids soccer and hockey games and love it for the fast focus and sharpness even at f4. </p>

<p>I am considering getting the 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 to supplement the zoom for the indoor hockey where the f4 is slightly limiting my shutter speed, and for nice portrait type shots. Those 2 primes are relatively inexpensive and have great reviews. Both are USM and similar build.</p>

<p>You said you tried your existing lens at f8 and you weren't getting sharp photos - perhaps the f4 constant aperture would help that by increasing your shutter speed 4x (2 stops) to get the crisp pics.</p>

<p>I would keep your existing zoom and supplement it with a 85 or 100 mm prime for the times when you need the higher SS in darker locations.</p>

<p>Other option is to look at a third-party lens like Sigma, with their HSM, keeping up with sports shouldn't be too difficult and cost could be more in line with your budget. I've contemplated their 50-150mm f2.8 zoom a couple times but always wonder about the front/back focus issues lots of people complain about.</p>

[philk]

<p>I've owned both the 70-300IS and 70-200 f4L. The 70-300 was the original version and not the new one so bear that in mind, and the 70-200 was the non-IS version. Here are my thoughts FWIW. The L is much more solid and small and light enough to carry all day. I hated the lens play of the 70-300 and the front rotates as well with focus. The L is sharper, more contrasty, focuses much faster and is a joy to use. The 70-300 - up to 135mm is just OK, and 200-300 is fair. The background blur is much nicer on the L, smoother. The 300 was more usable on moving platforms like a boat or bus, but on solid ground the L was very usable. <br>

Between the 70-200 f4L IS and non-IS. The IS is definitely more flexible but as you noted, at a cost. Many people have reported the non-IS to be sharper, but in handhold use, I think this is unlikely because IS is a very nice feature.</p>

 

[scrivyscriv]

<p>I've shot the f/2.8 versions of this lens and the real catch is that when you don't need the IS, you wish you hadn't paid extra to get it. But when the light suddenly changes and you are in a low-light jam, the IS pays off beautifully. You don't notice anything except more keepers. It's a refinement on an already excellent tool... You might rarely need it, but when you do, you'll know it saved your pictures.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I have owned the non IS version and now own the IS version and am glad I upgraded. So, let's work within your budget first. Get the non IS used from Craigslist and save $150. Strap a monopod onto your body as your non IS backup and you will get images that may better the 4 stop advantage of the IS version.</p>

[ddomonkos]

<p>In think the 70-200 f/4 L is the best value in the Canon lens system. I've used it for most of the action shots for Roadcarvin Magazine. I'm usually panning motorcycles or cars so IS doesn't matter to me. I've gotten great shots at ALMS and NHRA at night. 95+ percent of my shots are hand held, the lens is light enough to handle all day at the track.</p>