Upgrading my equipment; 70-200 f/4L: IS or no IS?

[quinny]

<p>Hi, everybody.. I've been reading on photo.net for a few years and in the last few months, I've taken a renewed intereset in photography.<br>

Early last year, I sold my two analog EOS bodies (a (very old) EOS 1 and an EOS 5) and bought a second hand 20D. In december I went from the following 'collection' of lenses:<br>

- Sigma 24mm f/1.8<br />- Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4<br />- Canon 50mm f/1.8 II<br />- Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III</p>

<p>To this:<br>

- Canon 17-40mm f/4L<br />- Canon 50mm f/1.8 II<br />- Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro</p>

<p>I'm really happy with these new (to me) lenses, but as you can guess, I'm missing a bit on the tele side. I've heard good and bad things about IS and I've heard people say to forget the f/4L IS and go for the f/2.8 without IS. I've also looked at the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS but I'm not really sure about the push-pull design. My old 75-300mm zoom changed size/volume while zooming and I've had to take it apart a few times to clean out all the dust that ended up inside it...</p>

<p>After this lens, I'm looking to upgrade my body (a 7D?) or look for a prime in the 300mm range (the 300mm f/4L IS looks really interesting) and a 1.4x 'extender'. A new body or the lens? The extender I will probably buy either way...</p>

<p>As you can see, I'm not really sure about what I want or need. Considering I'm not a professional photographer and I don't plan on ever becoming one, what would you do? I enjoy taking pictures of animals (wildlife, a lot of birds lately, hence the 300mm and extender), landscapes and macro's.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>If you're interested in shooting wildlife, with birds being one of the main subjects, the 100-400 would be a good choice. </p>

[quinny]

<p>Thanks. I've thought of that, it would save me some money (only having to buy one lens instead of two with an extender). But the stories of dust scare me away from it... Not so much dust getting on the sensor (easily cleaned off) but dust getting inside the lens.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>If you can afford it, getting the IS version of the 70~200/4 is a no-brainer. There are some purposes for which you might be better off spending the extra money on the f/2.8 non-IS version (indoor sports photography, for example), but that does not sound as if it applies in your case. For 1.6-factor use, IS on the 70~200/4 lens is even more valuable than it is for FF use.</p>

<p>In my experience, the 70~200/4L IS is light and compact enough to be a routine part of my carry-round kit. That does not apply to my 100~400, which I carry only when I know I am going to need it. By the way, I've never had any dust problems with that lens, despite using it extensively in game parks in southern Africa. I bought it long before the 70~200/4IS became available, and now that I have the 70~200/4IS, I might well find the 300/4IS with optional use of the Extender 1.4x to complement it better. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I would go with the 2.8 non-IS before the 4 IS because it will allow faster shutter speed and isolate the subject better. The f/ non IS is nice b/c its the cheapest version and much lighter than the other 3. Just depends on your budget. 2.8 is about double the price of the f/4.</p>

[quinny]

<p>I don't think I need the higher shutter speeds that the f/2.8 allows, I've been told that is quite heavy to walk around with all day. Also, I mostly try to 'shoot' things that are sitting still. Though the difference in DOF is something I'll have to take a look at...<br>

I like the idea of IS, but I've never tried a lens with IS before, so I don't know how well it works... I'm leaning towars the f/4L IS at the moment, but the f/2.8L is almost the same price... Perhaps I'll go for the f/4L IS (I'll buy second hand) and sell it again, without loss, if I decide I need the extra stop...<br>

My 75-300mm has seen some use in Kenya, the longest in Masaai Mara, it was full of dust when I got home (and all the pics I took with it had horrible purple and green fringing at high contrast areas). I'd prefer to stay away from lenses that change volume while focusing and zooming and I'd also like a lens that's 'weatherproof'. I think the 100-400mm is a no-go for me...</p>

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p> I enjoy taking pictures of animals (wildlife, a lot of birds lately</p>

</blockquote>

<p>animals don't tend to stand still. Also, the f/4 IS is heavy as well. If you're looking for a walk around lens, the f/4 non-IS is the smallest and lightest of the 4 versions.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>FWIW, the 70-300 IS (non-DO) is a really good lens too. Having said that, I have to admit that using a 70-200 L lens of any flavor is an absolute pleasure. I'm at the lower end, being delighted with color, contrast, sharpness, etc.</p>

<p>Dust is an issue, no doubt, but much less so in a lens than on a camera sensor. It's hard to quantify, of course, but I suppose it takes <em>quite a lot</em> of in-lens dust before it shows up one way or the other in your pics. Bottom line: if there is a "dust issue" with the 100-400, it probably shouldn't keep you from considering buying the lens. According to some, the 17-55 has a dust issue too but most users are extremely happy with that lens anyway. Besides, my 17-40 hasn't been totally dust-immune, despite being sealed.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Quintin, you can't go wrong with the 70-200/4 IS L for your applications. It's the best zoom in it's class, and the IS feature gives you an astounding four extra stops for still subjects. As I've said before and I'll undoubtedly say again, it's the version I have, and I couldn't be happier with a lens in its range.</p>

[quinny]

<p>Thanks for all the responses.</p>

<p>A lot of different opinions from everybody, as could be expected... I'm going to doubt some more while I wait for my salary to arrive... Perhaps I can find somebody in my area who has one of these lenses to see how I like it...</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>In regards to the 100-400mm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks. I've thought of that, it would save me some money (only having to buy one lens instead of two with an extender). But the stories of dust scare me away from it... Not so much dust getting on the sensor (easily cleaned off) but dust getting inside the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have noticed my sensor is consistently cleaner with this lens than without. My cameras does not have a dust delete function or the automatic sensor cleaner. The lens is also free of dust on the inside and between element. It has been my most frequently used lens this year.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My 75-300mm has seen some use in Kenya, the longest in Masaai Mara, it was full of dust when I got home (and all the pics I took with it had horrible purple and green fringing at high contrast areas).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 70-200 and 100-400 are L lenses and have much better sealing thant he 70-300 (70-200 is even better than the 100-400). The optical quality is also much much better.</p>

<p>As to the 70-200 F4 IS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you're looking for a walk around lens, the f/4 non-IS is the smallest and lightest of the 4 versions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The non IS version of the F4 is 1.56lbs (705g) while the IS version is 1.7lbs (760g). 55g is not a significant weight. The performance improvement of IS, is well worth the weight. The non IS F2.8 version is about 1lb heavier than the F4 IS lens. When I go on a long hiking trip I don't worry about the weight of this lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like the idea of IS, but I've never tried a lens with IS before, so I don't know how well it works...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I have 3 IS lenses. I can consistently get sharp photos at a shutter speed 2 stops lower than I would be able to without IS. If you have steady hands you could get a 3 stop advantage over a lens without IS. If you don't want the weight get either of the F4 versions. If you can afford it get the IS F4 version. </p>

<p>The F2.8 none IS will only give you a one stop advantage in low light. ISO performance in cameras today is at least 2 stops better that what it was just a few years ago and will be even better in a few years. So if you absolutely need a faster shutter speed just turn up the ISO. I have only seen one report where the IS in a lens actually failed and had to be repaired. Compare that to all of the focus problems you regularely see on photo.net.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>You won't be disappointed with the 70-200 f/4L IS. It is one of Canon's sharpest lenses with one of the best IS implementations. I own the non-IS version and got the IS version on loan from Canon while my lens was being repaired, and all it did was make me want the IS version (darn you Canon! ;-) I will upgrade at some point soon.</p>

<p>f/2.8 vs. f/4 is less of an issue in today's high ISO digital world.</p>

<p>The 100-400 is a good lens and will give you more reach for what you're trying to shoot. That said, I myself went with the 70-200 + 300 + 1.4x combo for various reasons.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p>IS at 200mm is useful - particularly if you're using a crop body. </p>

[quinny]

<p>So, more votes for the f/4L IS. I'm going to keep my eyes open for one of these... Thanks for all your reactions!</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>I have had the 70-200 F4L since 2001. My father (Robin Sibson, who posted above) has the IS version. I also have the 300 F4L IS. </p>

<p>Even when I had just bought the 70-200, I wished it had IS. There have been many situations where IS would have helped me with that lens. I have no personal interest in the F2.8 because I do not need the narrower depth of field and certainly do not want the weight. The F4 lenses are light and compact. If I were buying now then I would definitely go for the F4L IS. </p>