# 70-200 f/4: IS or non-IS



## andrei1989 (Aug 1, 2016)

i want to get a 70-200 f/4 since i already have a 2.8 (not one that would be expected  ) but it's too heavy for taking it backpacking.
I know the IS version has a revised optical formula and from what i can tell from the IQ comparison on TDP, there is a slight advantage for the IS version, but only at 200mm...
my question is: is the IS version worth it over the non-IS? is that slightly better IQ @ 200mm visible in real life?

I have seen comparisons only between the 2.8 non-IS and 4 IS, since these are about the same price...


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Aug 1, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> i want to get a 70-200 f/4 since i already have a 2.8 (not one that would be expected  ) but it's too heavy for taking it backpacking.
> I know the IS version has a revised optical formula and from what i can tell from the IQ comparison on TDP, there is a slight advantage for the IS version, but only at 200mm...
> my question is: is the IS version worth it over the non-IS? is that slightly better IQ @ 200mm visible in real life?
> 
> I have seen comparisons only between the 2.8 non-IS and 4 IS, since these are about the same price...


get the 70-200 is4l model one it has is two its weather sealed of the two pros the weather seal while hiking is a god send in a cloud burst or a dust cloud. the iq is much better then the non is as well and in the golden hour the 4 stops of is comes in handy while shooting landscapes.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 1, 2016)

I'd suggest hiking a couple times with your 2.8 version a couple times with the IS taped off and see if you miss it. 4 stops of IS really can be handy sometimes.. However, if you find you don't need it, the non-IS version is really a bargain. I've seen it around 500 cad (say 400 usd) often enough. Also, check your metadata- If you shoot landscapes, you're probably at f/8 - f:/16, so the IQ difference is likely to be minimal. If you're at f/4.0-5.6 the IS version definitely has an advantage


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 1, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I'd suggest hiking a couple times with your 2.8 version a couple times with the IS taped off and see if you miss it. 4 stops of IS really can be handy sometimes.. However, if you find you don't need it, the non-IS version is really a bargain. I've seen it around 500 cad (say 400 usd) often enough. Also, check your metadata- If you shoot landscapes, you're probably at f/8 - f:/16, so the IQ difference is likely to be minimal. If you're at f/4.0-5.6 the IS version definitely has an advantage



did that..i don't have IS on the 2.8 (it's an old sigma 70-210 f/2.8 APO) but it's really heavy (1430g - almost like the latest canon)..

at f/2.8 it's good and above f/4 it's great, so i normally use it between 5.6-8 during the day.
the 70-200 f4 is meant to replace the tamron 70-300 which i'm not really pleased with under f/8-11, depending on the length.

looking at the specs, the 70-200 weighs the same as the tamron 70-300..

i was thinking that i would get the IQ from the f/2.8 stopped down to 5.6 with the f/4 and add another bottle of water for the weight difference 

the non-IS can be found for 350-400€ used while the IS version is from 650€ used..

has anyone had or still has both and can definitely say that the IS version is much better and therefore worth the difference?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2016)

The IS version is better and well worth the extra money.

" Much better" is subjective and the differences can be lost in technique, ie people will say there isn't any difference in real world shooting for them, but if you take the time and trouble and use good technique the IS lens is well worth it.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 1, 2016)

When buying this lens 5 years ago I looked at the three options within my price bracket - the non-IS f2.8 and both f4 versions. 
I shoot a lot of my stuff indoors where tripods are not viable (or plain awkward) and on the move not carrying a tripod and I have been so grateful for the flexibility the excellent IS gives me. If you are a landscape shooter who regularly uses a tripod, it is probably less important. 

I have seen little difference shooting wide open and stopping down to f5.6 so that could surprise you. Of all the L lenses I own this is probably the one lens that kept me with a DSLR after I bought into micro4/3. 

I can't attest to the difference between the f4LIS and the other from personal experience, but I read plenty at the time saying the both version of the f4L gave very little away (if anything ) to the Canon f2.8 MkI then available. I would say you buy either version with confidence depending on how much you need the IS.


----------



## Rams_eos (Aug 1, 2016)

I don't have both, only the IS version. Some years ago, with crop camera I wanted best image quality with less bulk so I went for the IS versio and it is really very good. Not too far from the 100 mm 2.8 macro IS.
So I am very happy with it.
But now I use the 6D, i nearly not use it anymore, 24-105 or 100-400 II or prime.
So if choice is IS or not IS, I would go IS, but is it what you need?


----------



## Frodo (Aug 1, 2016)

I had the non-IS 200/4. Nice lens, but I found it flared badly when shooting into the sun.
I also found that I hardly used the shorter focal lengths as I used this an a hiking lens with the 24-105, so I got the 200/2.8. This was sharper, a bit lighter and smaller (especailly with an aftermarket screw-in lens hood) and a less conspicuous black. And of course faster. 
The 200/2.8 is definitely less flexible than the 70-200/4, but is a better combo for me when paired with the 24-105.
If I got the 70-200/4, I would definitely get the IS version


----------



## nc0b (Aug 1, 2016)

In the long run you will wish you spent the modest added cost of the IS version if you buy the non-IS now. I have both the 70-200 2.8 II and the f/4 IS, and I never turn off the IS. Sometimes I use mode 2, but never no IS. The only place I don't miss IS is BIF and my 400mm f/5.6. It works better for me than the 100-400 II for BIF.


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 2, 2016)

I have the 70-200 f4 non-is and it is a great lens. I use it all the time for backpacking. Is the 70-200 f4 is better yes. If money is tight go for the non IS. If you didn't have the 2.8 one I would say IS for sure. 
Also if you are hiking 70-300L is a great lens.


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 2, 2016)

thanks guys, you've helped me make up my mind...i'll go for the IS version
now i just have to find a reasonable offer somewhere close to me, so i can try the lens..


----------



## pwp (Aug 2, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> i want to get a 70-200 f/4 since i already have a 2.8 (not one that would be expected  ) but it's too heavy for taking it backpacking.
> I know the IS version has a revised optical formula and from what i can tell from the IQ comparison on TDP, there is a slight advantage for the IS version, but only at 200mm...
> my question is: is the IS version worth it over the non-IS? is that slightly better IQ @ 200mm visible in real life?


FWIW I was in an almost identical situation. I have the 70-200 f/2.8isII and sometimes felt the weight was a bit much. So I got a 70-200 f/4is for those occasions I needed to travel light. Trouble is, after the first couple of weeks and only using the new lens more out of interest than genuine need, the f/4is just sat there for six months gathering dust before I sold it as part of a studio clean-up. The 70-200 f/2.8isII is such an incredible piece of glass, I just couldn't downgrade. 

-pw


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 2, 2016)

well...in my case, the downgrade would be only in terms of maximum aperture..
all the other aspects would be an upgrade from what i have now: IQ wide open, IS, focus speed, weight


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 2, 2016)

My first piece of L series glass, was the non IS 70-200 f/4.0. Fantastic piece of equipment that I really enjoyed tremendously.

When the opportunity came to upgrade to the IS version for a very good price, I jumped on it. Aside from the rather startling noise the IS makes, I find it outperformed the non IS in every aspect, remember, it is a more modern optical formula. The biggest leap forward, is when shooting into direct light, it handles flare way better and yes, the IS is superb. You can actually see the stabilisation effect happening in your view finder.

The non IS version is a very, very good lens. But you will feel that you've left the better option on the table if you do no take the IS version


----------



## Famateur (Aug 2, 2016)

I only have personal experience with the IS version, which I am thoroughly pleased with.

Once in a while, I'll transition from tripod work to handheld and realize that I've left the IS off. I quickly switch it back on.


----------



## JoshuaP1993 (Aug 4, 2016)

If the IS model is affordable for you then I would recommend that.


----------

