Canon 70-200 f4 IS or non IS?

A

Aamli

Member
Hello everyone! Im going to buy the canon 70-200mm f.4 L-lense. My question is do I really need IS when Im going to use it on a tripod only? Im using a manfrotto fluid 501-head mounted on manfrotto 055XB sticks. Im never going to use it handheld/ shouldermounted..


What Im shooting? Anything really, but a lot of short commercials, short nature films and some skiing/snowboarding videos.

I cant afford the 70-200IS right now.. Do you think I should wait until I can afford it?


btw sorry for my english! Im from Norway:)
 
You'll probably want to step up to the IS after 6 months or so. At that point, you can sell its lower-priced bro.
 
I'm about to plunk down the cash and get the non-IS version. I've seen the lens at the store and for video, you have to shoot it on a tripod. For stills, the IS would be nice for handhelds, but for video, I just cannot see how you can hold this lens (it's really big and heavy).

I talked to the Canon tech guy, and he says if you're planning on shooting it on a Tripod or Monopod, just save the money and get the non-IS.

Incidentally, the non-IS version has better IQ than the IS version (version 1). The new IS version (version 2) has the best IQ, but costs a small fortune ($2500 I believe).

go to www.photozone.de, they do a great review on all 3 incarnation of the 70-200 f2.8

NOTES: Oppss.. I just saw that you're getting the f4 version (not the f2.8 version). For the F4, the IS would be nice because that lens is not big and can be handheld. But it is a lot more money.
 
Last edited:
I just bought the non-IS second hand for a shoot in Croatia. The lens is really light and very sharp. With all the jello I'm always on sticks, slider or jib so I see no real need for the IS. Plus second hand they get really cheap. Mine was $400 Canadian.
 
I just bought the f4 non IS lens off Mr Jordan_S, and love it. The picture it produces is amazing. For tripod use its excellent and a lot cheaper than the IS version. It's also light enough to use for long periods when shooting stills.
 
Truth be known, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is a gateway lens leading directly into L-coholism.
To wit:

  • The gateway lens causes users to be at increased risk for purchase of other L lenses.
  • The gateway lens primes the brain for addiction to other lenses (independent of becoming more likely to try other lenses ).
  • There is a rigid sequence of progression, starting with less expensive lenses followed by increasingly expensive ones.
 
Jordan_S said:
Truth be known, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is a gateway lens leading directly into L-coholism.
To wit:

  • The gateway lens causes users to be at increased risk for purchase of other L lenses.
  • The gateway lens primes the brain for addiction to other lenses (independent of becoming more likely to try other lenses ).
  • There is a rigid sequence of progression, starting with less expensive lenses followed by increasingly expensive ones.
Click to expand...

That is SO funny (and very true).

So far I am in for 17-40 F4L, Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 50 1.4 (plus primes I already had).... Damn you DVXUSER!!
 
I just got my T2i a month ago and went a little nuts myself----24-105L F4, Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, and....70-200L 2.8 IS.....
The latter cost me two months rent but it's beauty (and beast), and if I find myself not using it so much for lowlight or if my arm falls off because of its 3.5lbs I can always sell it for the F4 IS and pocket a couple bucks.
I also have my Nikons--28mm F2.8 and 50 1.4 which I haven't tested much.
I was recently tempted by the 35mm 1.4L but told myself, no, no, not yet...

A bit off topic, but does anyone know if the Indislider has screw mounts on its ends to mount to two tripods?
 
If anyone else is interested in a used 70-200 f4 L non-IS, PM me. I have one that doesn't really ever get used.
 
Jordan_S said:
Truth be known, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is a gateway lens leading directly into L-coholism.
To wit:

  • The gateway lens causes users to be at increased risk for purchase of other L lenses.
  • The gateway lens primes the brain for addiction to other lenses (independent of becoming more likely to try other lenses ).
  • There is a rigid sequence of progression, starting with less expensive lenses followed by increasingly expensive ones.
Click to expand...

I'm living proof!
 
saneproductions said:
That is SO funny (and very true).

So far I am in for 17-40 F4L, Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 50 1.4 (plus primes I already had).... Damn you DVXUSER!!
Click to expand...

What's your opinion of the 17-40 f4 L?

I'm tempted to go for this lens as I really can't justify the price of the 24-70 f2.8 L.

I have the 70-200 f4 L so I'm hooked on the L series picture quality...
 
the 17-40 is a great all around lens on aps c. A little short though. I carry that and a fast 50 if I am out and about taking stills.
 
thanks everyone!
I think I will go for the 70-200 f4 non IS, since I will only use it tripod-mounted
 
The strange thing about L-Lenses is that they're not always the best lenses. www.photozone.de does really, really good lens reviews. Case in point. The super cheapo 50mm f 1.8 has superior resolution figures than the 50mm 1.2 L., and it costs $1300 less.

Also, the 50mm f1.4 (which costs about $1000 less) is also optically superior to the L 50mm 1.2

In fact, if you read the reviews, a few of the L-lenses are not really the best optically (But more often then not, they are the best). So do you research before you plunk down on something that says L.

With that said, I'm getting the 70-200L f4 IS. According to the reviews, it's one of the best zooms Canon has ever made.
 
Last edited:
Well its funny to see this post. I just did a test last week with a 70-200 IS and Non-IS, and also used a IS and turned off the electronic stabilization. We were curious if the IS was causing some of the jitters and little bugs you see when panning (no not talking about rolling shutter). So I found the IS is a definite necessity. Try both lenses and pan ever so slightly and you will see what I am talking about. And especially if you plan on shooting at the 200 range on a 7D you are going to want it. Go IS....
 
UnderwaterCinematographer said:
Well its funny to see this post. I just did a test last week with a 70-200 IS and Non-IS, and also used a IS and turned off the electronic stabilization. We were curious if the IS was causing some of the jitters and little bugs you see when panning (no not talking about rolling shutter). So I found the IS is a definite necessity. Try both lenses and pan ever so slightly and you will see what I am talking about. And especially if you plan on shooting at the 200 range on a 7D you are going to want it. Go IS....
Click to expand...

Thanks!
Have you posted/ going to post this test anywhere? Really curious to see what the difference looks like!
 
UnderwaterCinematographer said:
Well its funny to see this post. I just did a test last week with a 70-200 IS and Non-IS, and also used a IS and turned off the electronic stabilization. We were curious if the IS was causing some of the jitters and little bugs you see when panning (no not talking about rolling shutter). So I found the IS is a definite necessity. Try both lenses and pan ever so slightly and you will see what I am talking about. And especially if you plan on shooting at the 200 range on a 7D you are going to want it. Go IS....
Click to expand...

I had some issues with IS in the past. Things like the pan catching up with my move late with an XL-2.
I've been working with long lenses on support for a long time with no is. I know when the wind kicks up sometimes it can be useful, but most of the time it won't be an issue. The price difference can get me another lens. I just found a Tokina 11-16 used for $550 and the difference in the price of the non is may get me close to having both lenses.
It's nice to have, but for the extra cash is IS really necessary with good camera support?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top