Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hey everyone,

I've been looking at this lens for the last week and I'm wondering where to purchase one or not...

Any opinions? Pro's and Con's?

Pros:
- cheapest of the 70-200 variants
- lightest
- apparently the sharpest of the variants

Cons (pretty obvious stuff):
- not as fast
- no IS
- no weather seal

If you will primarily be shooting with plenty of light then it's probably the way to go.

I've got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and love it but shooting on sunny days I wish I had the 70-200 f/4 to save weight.

I have this lens and it's superb. Not very heavy, especially compared to the other 70-200s. Can't say a bad thing about it.

I thought it was weather sealed

I'm looking at it cause of the weight and as i would probably use it with decent lighting anyhow

SD, any bad things you can say about it?

Only the IS versions (f/4 IS, f/2.8 IS) are weather sealed.

I believe the consensus is that the NON-IS versions of the 70-200L's (both the 2.8 and 4) are better than their IS counterparts. But at the cost of lacking IS.

Also, the F/4 and F/4 is better than the F/2.8 stopped down to F/4 according to what I've read.

I keep reading the same thing...

I'm going to be playing with a 2.8 IS next week so I'll have a decent frame of reference then... just that the f4 non IS seems to be fairly affordable

I don't know what you paid for your consensus but on the internet I'm on the 70-200 f/4 IS is unanimously better than the f/4 non-IS

I'm not a fan of zoom lenses or even autofocus lenses, but I can recommend the 70-200 f4 L as a great lens, having owned one for some time before fully switching to manual focus primes. Although largish, especially when you attach the lens hood, it's still very light and easy to handhold. More importantly it performs great even wide open at f4 which is really nice. Two thumbs up from this reviewer.

see, I keep reading that the non-IS is sharper in most situations, but its good to have the IS and turn it off

this is why I can read everything on the web, but wondering if anyone can give their experience with the lens

Here's an example wide open. I honestly can't say anything bad about it. For my normal shooting conditions - plenty of light it never let's me down.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/seren_dipity/195928777/" title="To hang or not to hang .. that is the question. by ~~~James~~~, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/57/195928777_e2b289a61d.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="To hang or not to hang .. that is the question."></a>

actually it's opposite. the IS version is sharper due to the newer design.
IS wouldnt affect sharpness unless it's an old version which cant sense the motion of movement and act accordingly.

in many situations, IS makes your pictures "sharper" at slower speed.

70-200 F4 IS
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1

70-200 F4 non IS
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

well, i have to admit, I was reading some of the reviews on Fm and some ppl on there suggest its a sharp lens... and some suggested the IS isn't

I just noticed someone on another forum (RFD) posted the exact question and used the same link i saw....

Does anyone have an opinion on the IS for this or any other lenses?

check 55-250 and 70-300 IS if you are on budget.

i wouldnt reccomend non IS telephoto lens unless you have very steady hands and only shot at fast speed.


1/60 200mm, 70-200 F4 IS

IS lenses are a lot more complex and delicate internally as they physically more a lens element or group of elements for the stabilization magic. As such their is the potential issue of a lens element getting decentered if the lens gets bumped around leading to poorer image quality. As lens elements in a non-IS lens are cemented in place securely and the lens can take bumps, etc. a lot better I would always go for the non-IS lens unless the lens is very heavy and hard to handhold. Given the light weight of the 70-210 non IS, it's not a hard lens to handhold steady at moderately slow shutter speeds like 1/60s.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 999/cat/11
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... /55/cat/11

so essentially looking through those reviews, if you can afford IS, then go for it

Even in the last review, it stated that the non-IS is very very good

I would simply ask myself 3 questions since all the variations of the 70-200 are good.

1. Will weight be an issue?
2. Do I really need IS?
3. What is my budget?

Depending on the answers and the priority of your answers you can decide for yourself.

ya good point.. just wondering though, should I save my pennies longer and just buy the IS version

i think both are very good lenses

I used a f2.8 IS for a while and loved it. I found it to be too heavy for traveling so I switched to the f4 IS and with no regret at all. My travel kit is now : 24-70 f2.8 70-200 f4 IS and the Olympus 18mm f3.5

http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/bra/pho/1335506943.html

F4 non IS on sale on craigslist

to me its either the cheapest (f4 non IS) or the most expensive (f2.8 IS)

I never really liked the 70-200 f/4 when I was with Canon. f/4 at 200mm is too slow for me, but in good light it can't be beat.

I think it also depends on your needs, if this is to be your primary lens then I would say buy the best you can get, if to be used every so often, and usually stopped down (like it is in my case) then is is a perfect lens, on top of that doesn't weigh and it's not as bulky to carry around as 2.8. I purchased this lens used through tpmg and am very happy, suits my needs perfectly and worked very well within my budget.

I would recommend that you wait and save up for the 70-200 4L IS. Its an awesome lens! I had the same question as you and decided to opt for the IS version. The colours are wonderful on this lens and it focuses quite fast! I have also shot as slow as 1/20 at 200mm and it was still very sharp!

It seems to me that you'd be better off with the IS. If you get the non-IS you'll be second guessing yourself forever. Might as well bite the bullet & buy over your head, rather than putting up with the remorse.

Having said all that though, what else is in your lineup? I WISH I had saved up a little more money & bought the EF300 f4L IS. Not zoom, I realize, but I always seem to use my 70-200 at 200 anyway and usually wish I had more! To boot, the 300 has IS and is a notoriously fabulous, sharp lens!!!

I'm gonna get one soon (Canon rebates Sep 1 to Oct 31!!). Maybe you'd like to buy my 70-200 f4L, non IS...

heh heh

i just used my friend's 4L IS for an event, and it went well... i would have agree about the IS. Especially, at the higher ranges.. the 1 and 2 AF modes were really handy

I've used the f4 IS, f2.8, and f2.8IS. I absolutely loved the f4 IS... especially outdoors. if you're going to be shooting indoors, go with the 2.8 IS if you have the budget. have you done a side-by-side comparison of the models?

i wish I have..

I may rent a 2.8 IS and borrow my friends 4L IS to see just what differences there are.

I am now a believer in the IS though, that its much better to have it there as the option than not.

I have the 70-200 4 IS version and am very happy with it. It easily gives you three to four stops of light hand held - so I can hand hold at 200mm on my 40D at slow shutter speeds. The AF is wicked fast. I primarily bought it because it is half the weight of the 2.8 non and IS versions.