# IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS



## VitorMachado (Apr 12, 2013)

Well, title says it all. I've never shot with an IS telephoto lens and I was wondering if that should affect my next purchase? I don't do video whatsoever and I try to shoot handheld when possible (although I will 'pod it when necessary). The couple stops of Aperture seem to be quite a difference but I'm willing to compromise if the IS makes that much of a difference. As you all probably know, these lenses are within the same price range so the money isn't a factor. Thanks in advance!

* Most of my photography are static objects but I do like to shoot moving animals occasionally.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 12, 2013)

Personally I'd rather have IS and not need it than need it and not have it. For me the advantage of IS is a steady viewfinder which even when using high shutter speeds helps you keep focus on target. You honestly can't really go wrong with either of the two lenses above.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 12, 2013)

For static subjects, IS is more useful. It will allow you to decrease ISO/shutter speed and achieve better IQ. If you were shooting sports or moving animals more, then you'd want to to shoot at higher shutter speeds, where IS would make less of a difference.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2013)

I survived without IS for a while. I don't need it with my 24LII or my 50L, but my 135L seriously needs IS. If your shooting action though, IS is irrelevant but lens speed is more important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2013)

If you _need_ f/2.8 for shutter speed or DoF, get the f/2.8. Else get the f/4 IS. 

Or pay more and get the f/2.8L IS II.


----------



## michi (Apr 12, 2013)

All good advice here. I think I would rather have IS than 2.8. Yes, when shooting action, 2.8 is better than IS at 4.0 to stop the action. But once you stop down, that advantage is gone. So, unless you mostly shoot action wide open, I think the f4 IS would be the better more versatile option. Oh, and also lighter and smaller.


----------



## yablonsky (Apr 12, 2013)

Definitely the f/4 with IS. Since this is a tele lens, you really need it. I once switched off the IS of my 300 f/4 and wondered why the landscape was shaking so badly. The longer the reach the more IS you need. Or a tripod.
The 70-200 f/4 IS is a great lens. It costs half of the 2.8 and has half of the weight. Which is important if you hike.
Image quality, sharpness and contrast is great. I can really recommend that one.


----------



## dcren123 (Apr 12, 2013)

I agree with everyone else, get the IS version, be it f2.8 or f4 

with the 2.8 non-IS unless you're shooting with high shutter speed, you'll need a tripod to keep the lens steady, and since you mention you try to shoot handheld when possible, IS is a must (especially since the 2.8 is so heavy). Also, f4 is only one stop slower than the f2.8. You could try renting both first and trying them out.

IMHO The F4L with IS is just that much more convenient than the 2.8 non-IS variant.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 12, 2013)

If you will always be using the lens in bright light and have a steady hand, you probably don't need IS at all. But if, like me, you will often want to use it in lower light, and if you're not trying to freeze action or minimize depth of focus, you may find, as I do, that f/4 + IS yields better results than f/2.8 without it. Even though I seem to have a pretty steady hand (I've taken taken some sharp photos in very low light with the 135L and 200 f/2.8 L at very slow shutter speeds), I'm still not as good as IS and I would rather not worry about it.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 12, 2013)

.
While I can't speak to those lenses specifically, I use the f/4.0 without IS (Roger at Lens Rentals says it's sharper than the IS version, for what that's worth). Anyway, I've found that unless it's a bright sunny day, I leave it home. Either that or get it on a tripod.

For good light, it's excellent, but I really suffer the lack of IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2013)

I've had multiple copies of all three versions of the f/2.8, and the IS version of the f/4. 
Use of the non IS version was not a issue for me, but I knew to keep my shutter speeds up to 1/200 sec, usually 1/400 if I could. It is a wonderful lens, and used prices make it better. Since it does not have IS, its simpler and seems to be more reliable.
Obviously, IS is more forgiving of my sloppy practices, but after learning the best settings for no IS at 200mm, it worked very well.

Here is a handheld shot with the f/2.8 non IS and a 1.4X TC. Its a near 100% crop. Wide open aperture and 1/320 sec. 280mm equiv. I found the lens locally for $300.


----------



## Pi (Apr 16, 2013)

IS is pretty much mandatory at this FL. An additional bonus is to shoot at ISO 100 most of the time. 

The IS of the 70-200/4 IS is phenomenal. The best I have ever used.


----------



## Botts (Apr 16, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> Well, title says it all. I've never shot with an IS telephoto lens and I was wondering if that should affect my next purchase? I don't do video whatsoever and I try to shoot handheld when possible (although I will 'pod it when necessary). The couple stops of Aperture seem to be quite a difference but I'm willing to compromise if the IS makes that much of a difference. As you all probably know, these lenses are within the same price range so the money isn't a factor. Thanks in advance!
> 
> * Most of my photography are static objects but I do like to shoot moving animals occasionally.



I went through a similar decision last year.

I shoot handheld whenever possible. I shoot mostly static objects with my camera, sometimes I shoot moving animals.

For me, on a static subject, the IS made a bigger difference than the extra stop in terms of sharpness. I went with the 70-200/4 IS.

This was with the 70-200/4 IS on a 6D at 1600 ISO, f/4, 1/125s.



IMG_2250 by BrianBotterill, on Flickr


----------



## DCM1024 (Apr 17, 2013)

I haven't missed IS on my 135L, even in low light. For 200mm, I feel I would definitely need either IS or a tripod. The length of the lens comes into play here (at least for me). I love my 70-200 F4 IS.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 17, 2013)

I don't see how this can go down any other way. You either care more about shooting things that don't move(get the f4IS) or things that do move(get one of the 2.8 options). For shooting stationary things IS will more than make up for the 1 stop of speed loss. Or just pony up more money for a larger heavier 2.8IS. BTW- I consider the heavier 2.8 easier to hold steady than the lighter f4's. depending on how you work, you might care about filter sizes. Or not...


----------



## pwp (Apr 17, 2013)

Put simply, with IS my keeper rate is appreciably higher in most shooting environments, most noticeably shooting with longer focal lengths. I genuinely miss IS when shooting with the 135 f/2. With a 70-200, IS has got to be worth every penny of the price premium. 

-PW


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 17, 2013)

I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.


----------



## Botts (Apr 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.



A great point that makes a huge difference in how likely you are to carry your 70-200mm vs leave it in the car or hotel room.

Finally I checked the original posters signature, he is shooting with a 6D. He's got the ISO flexibility to give up the stop to gain IS. It's a compromise, but since he said he's primarily shooting subjects that are stationary, he is probably better with IS, knowing that he's got the high ISO performance if he's shooting things that move.


----------



## WillThompson (Apr 17, 2013)

*IS is mandatory!*

IS is mandatory!

So is f2.8 for focus speed and accuracy.

Canon keeps shooting themselves in the foot, I will not buy a 24-70mm without IS and f2.8!

Same goes for 16-35mm!

Will T.


----------



## axeri (Apr 17, 2013)

I agree with the previous comment, the F4 is much lighter. I have it and I love it, it's very sharp, I highly recommend it. And for how I use it I think would miss the IS a lot.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 17, 2013)

My 2 cents. I shoot video so the camera is generally supported, even for stills on my day iff I'll use a monopod at least:

F2.8 pays dividend for af speed. All EOS DSLRs benefit from F2.8 or faster lenses in terms of AF. A camera with great Af like my 7d becomes brilliant, a camera with mediocre af becomes quite good (like my 600d, in crntre spot select at least) regardless of actual shooting aperture.

F2.8 gives me an extra stop. Obvious. But for video when you are using a fixed shutter this can be incredibly helpful.

Depending on the tests you trust the non-is f2.8 is marginally sharper.

Yes its heavy, but if you are carrying a large 6d and an 70-200 f4 the difference isn't that much really. Why not buy an ixus instead?

Even handheld, the magnification of a 70-200 is such that even with IS taking care of the camera shake, subject motion blur is going to warrant a faster shutter anyway. Negating to some degree the IS.

One selling point for the f4IS of f2.8IS... Weather sealing, which the f2.8 non IS lacks.

My take might not be right for you, but it works for me.


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.



I own this lens for the same reason (well, that and the fact that the 2.8 IS version is twice as expensive ). The IQ from both 2.8 and f4 lenses as I understand it is pretty similar, so I can live with only having f4 as the max. aperture!


----------



## bycostello (Apr 17, 2013)

do you shoot in bright daylight or dark conditions?


----------



## pwp (Apr 17, 2013)

*Re: IS is mandatory!*



WillThompson said:


> IS is mandatory!
> So is f2.8 for focus speed and accuracy.
> Canon keeps shooting themselves in the foot, I will not buy a 24-70mm without IS and f2.8!
> Same goes for 16-35mm!
> Will T.


On the contrary, I see Canon as _not_ having shot themselves in the foot by leaving IS off the new 24-70.

The wider you go, the relevance of IS obviously diminishes. While IS may have been nice on the new 24-70, the extra weight, bulk and substantial price premium over what is already a pricey lens just not worth it. I'm happy paying $2300 to get the astounding optics and stellar performance. If adding IS meant cutting back on IQ to make the price-point, then I'm glad IS was not included. 

IS for the 16-35 f/2.8II? Same argument. But more so with that lens's focal length increasing IS's irrelevance. 

Just another point of view...

-PW


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 17, 2013)

If you don't have IS, you can be one of those "I don't need IS!, I know how to hold the camera!" people.

If you have IS, you can take better, sharper photos, often in lower light.


----------



## dexstrose (Apr 17, 2013)

Plus with the 2.8, you get to utilize the High precision af center point on the 6d.
That is if you shoot wide open all the time?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 17, 2013)

dexstrose said:


> Plus with the 2.8, you get to utilize the High precision af center point on the 6d.
> That is if you shoot wide open all the time?



No.

From the mid sixties most SLR cameras have had full aperture TTL metering.

That is the iris stops down to shooting aperture at exposure, it remains open before exposure to keep the viewfinder bright for focusing. Meter coupling, and these days electronic interfaces, tell the meter how much to compensate the reading for.

So if you have an f2.8 or faster lens, the af is performed at f2.8 or faster, even if you shoot at f8 all the time.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 17, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> If you don't have IS, you can be one of those "I don't need IS!, I know how to hold the camera!" people.
> 
> If you have IS, you can take better, sharper photos, often in lower light.



If you have IS, you can be one of those 'I don't understand it, my photograph of a raven in a coal shed at midnight taken on a 400mm lens is blurry' people.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 17, 2013)

Don't know if it is "mandatory" but I prefer IS lenses as I get better handheld shots.


----------



## dexstrose (Apr 17, 2013)

Thanks Paul13walnut! I always wondered about that. I thought you had to shoot at 2.8 all the time. 





paul13walnut5 said:


> No.
> 
> From the mid sixties most SLR cameras have had full aperture TTL metering.
> 
> ...


----------



## jcollett (Apr 17, 2013)

dexstrose said:


> Thanks Paul13walnut! I always wondered about that. I thought you had to shoot at 2.8 all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you want to see what your sensor will see when the shutter is activated, use the DOF preview button on your camera. For many Canons, it is on the lower side of the lens mount away from the shutter button. On the 5D mark iii, it was moved to the shutter side of the mount. Regardless, find it on your body and before you take the picture, press and hold that DOF preview button. It will stop down the aperture to your set value and you can see through the viewfinder or live view the actual light amount (and Depth of Field).


----------

