Canon 70-200 f4 L Lens - IS or Non IS??

Canon 70-200 f4 L Lens - IS or Non IS??

Author
Discussion

B16JUS

Original Poster:

2,385 posts

236 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
Hi,

Im looking at the canon 70-200 f4 lens

Im not sure if the IS is worth £400 more ?

Mainly for car shots on track from the side

If its only stabilisation I could buy a nice monopod and still have cash left over

Any advice would be great

DibblyDobbler

11,256 posts

196 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
I'm not 100% sure but I believe the IS version does also have better optics as well as stabilisation.

The non-IS is good the IS is brilliant (I believe - not owned both) - don't think you'd be disappointed with either though smile

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-...


There are indeed greater differences between the IS and non-IS version of the lens than simply IS.

Both lenses are reviewed for APC format sensors at the site referenced. Only the IS version for Full Format. However I doubt the assessment would be much different with these lenses.

I can't vouch for either of them based on personal use as I went daft and bought the f2.8 IS II. My excuse was that the addition bulk would mean a significant saving on the cost of Gym membership - no longer required once one owns the f2.8 version of the lens ... and so easily justify the extra cost of the thing. wink

However I have seen lavish praise applied to all versions of the the Canon 70-200 L models.

bobs4c

314 posts

237 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
I have the IS version because it is a useful thing to have, which I set to mode 2 for track use. However, it is a lot more expensive. I would have to check the spec but I'm thinking the IS version is weather proof whereas the non IS is less so?

Bob

PorscheGT4

21,146 posts

264 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
The is is one of canons best, buy it.

Craikeybaby

10,369 posts

224 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
I have the f2.8 non IS version, which has mainly been used for motorsport photography. the only time I considered moving up to the IS version was when I had a 1D, as the IS versions also have the weather sealing gasket, which matches up to the gasket on the 1D lens mount.

With regards to stabilisation, you shouldn't need a monopod with a 70-200, especially not the f4 version.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
I thought optically they are both similar. In any regard the non is is still a stunning lens.

Mode 2 is great for panning though

B16JUS

Original Poster:

2,385 posts

236 months

Thursday 28th May 2015
quotequote all
Thanks for all the comments guys

revrange

1,182 posts

183 months

Friday 29th May 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-...


There are indeed greater differences between the IS and non-IS version of the lens than simply IS.

Both lenses are reviewed for APC format sensors at the site referenced. Only the IS version for Full Format. However I doubt the assessment would be much different with these lenses.

I can't vouch for either of them based on personal use as I went daft and bought the f2.8 IS II. My excuse was that the addition bulk would mean a significant saving on the cost of Gym membership - no longer required once one owns the f2.8 version of the lens ... and so easily justify the extra cost of the thing. wink

However I have seen lavish praise applied to all versions of the the Canon 70-200 L models.
Just brought the F2.8 II myself, what a beast of a lens.

However i would maybe go left field. For the price of a new F4 IS you can get a MK1 2.8 with IS, worth a look around for one?

canon's 70-200mm as said above are great lens.