# 70-200 f/4 L IS USM



## barbara (Apr 10, 2012)

Salve !
Vi chiedo un consiglio
Ho una CANON 550D
Mi interessa il 70-200 f/4
Non riesco capire se conviene spendere il doppio per stabilizzatore
Lo userei per i miei viaggi
Grazie


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 10, 2012)

Translated from Italian via Google:

Hi!
I ask for advice
I have a Canon 550D
I am interested in the 70-200 f / 4
I can not figure out whether it makes sense to spend twice as stabilizer
I'd use it for my travels
thanks

Yes, IS is worth the extra cost if you can afford it. Remember, IS does nothing for subject movement.


----------



## stilscream (Apr 10, 2012)

I spent the extra $ for the IS ii and the f2.8 because it had the weather sealing to match with the 7d.
However, it is a lot heavier. So, yes, it helps, but if you plan on hiking with it, maybe the weight will be too much difference.
The EF-S 55-250mm is cheap, but a great value in that range and has IS. Lightweight too.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 10, 2012)

I have the 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS and it's rare that I don't get a speed above 1/200s outdoors. So, for me it works perfectly without the IS, but if you want to use it in low light conditions without a tripod the IS will be a huge help.


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 10, 2012)

barbara said:


> Salve !
> Vi chiedo un consiglio
> Ho una CANON 550D
> Mi interessa il 70-200 f/4
> ...



Ciao Barbara!

Se utilizerai trepiedi o fai immagini durante il giorno, va bene senza stabilizzatore pero il versione con stabilizzatore da anche risultati piu nitidi.

Grazie

(What I tried to say in Italian above: if you use tripod or shoot during the day, it would be ok without the IS but the IS version also gives sharper results.) ;D


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 11, 2012)

IMO the IS is absolutely worth the additional price... especially at that length. I have it and I love it... Except theres that nagging knowledge that I could also have the 2.8


----------



## Steve Campbell (Apr 11, 2012)

I have the IS version of this lens and love it. It's very sharp. Do some research. The IS version is not just the old version with the latest generation IS added. It is also weather sealed and has had a number of other improvements made to it from what I have read.


----------



## skitron (Apr 11, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Remember, IS does nothing for subject movement.



This is true. IS can be thought of as a tripod substitute and it is very effective in many situations. It is highly desireable for traveling with camera and lens only...especially if lens is f4 and shooting in less than daylight.


----------



## Cosk (Apr 11, 2012)

Yes - IS is invaluable for travel. 
Sì - E 'un valore inestimabile per i viaggi.


----------



## getalife (Apr 11, 2012)

Hi there I am also a 550d user. I was having exactly the same question like you when I was thinking to get a canon tele lens. I decided on a 70-200 f4 IS in the end and I like it. IS is useful. I can get sharp images at 1/50s at 200mm, which is great for handheld shooting.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Apr 11, 2012)

At any rate I would go for the IS Version. It's tack sharp and only surpassed by the 70-200 2,8 II albeit by a small margin. And the advantages of a four stop IS cannot be overestimated. It frees you from several restraints among these the indispensable prerequisite for working with tele lenses, a stabilized view through the finder. Thus, the IS version definitely would be my choice.


----------



## FarQinell (Apr 13, 2012)

The f/4 IS is preferable to the f/2.8 IS. 
Why?
The f/4 is half the weight.
The f/4 is half the price.
The f/4 is sharper wide open than the f/2.8 is wide open.
The f/4 IS is one of those rare zooms - sharp wide open and sharp at the top end as well.
OK - if you want to look good with a big heavy zoom lens around your neck then get the f/2.8!

If you really want f/2.8 consider buying the two Canon lightweight primes - 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8.

A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 14, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> The f/4 IS is preferable to the f/2.8 IS.
> Why?
> The f/4 is half the weight.
> The f/4 is half the price.
> ...



Fixed.

And I'd argue on that "Sharper wide open" thing... at f/4 the 2.8 is as sharp, if not sharper. at f/2.8, its at least as good as the f/4 is at f/4.
And if you're going to go with the Prime will beat a zoom thing, might as well just suggest the primes over the f/4 as well.


----------



## Matthew19 (Apr 17, 2012)

The f/4 IS is sharper than the non-IS version : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 18, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> The f/4 IS is sharper than the non-IS version : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0



Yes, but it is considerably cheaper and still an excellent lens. I really love my non-L and believe that it's one of Canon's best value-for-money lenses.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 19, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Matthew19 said:
> 
> 
> > The f/4 IS is sharper than the non-IS version : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
> ...



Its not a non-L... Its still an L and is why its such an excellent lens. The IS is so helpful though, unless you only shoot in very bright light


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 19, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew19 said:
> ...



D'oh - oops! I meant to write non-IS not non-L. 

Of course the IS is very helpful in low light, but I encountered only very few conditions where I couldn't achieve 1/100s @ ISO 400, which still gives me enough speed for shooting at 70mm (for the long end I have to increase the ISO significantly under the same conditions).


----------



## LIsnap (Apr 20, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> I have the 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS and it's rare that I don't get a speed above 1/200s outdoors. So, for me it works perfectly without the IS, but if you want to use it in low light conditions without a tripod the IS will be a huge help.



+1 I have the non-IS and it is great for outdoors and the price can't be beat for L quality and IQ. It is so good that I find myself wanting to use it in low light also, but that requires a tripod or flash unless you get the IS version.


----------



## Ew (Apr 20, 2012)

Can anyone comment on whether the 4 non-IS or the 2.8 lenses exhibit the same "breathing" as the 4.0 IS ??

Change in focus changes magnification.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 20, 2012)

I have the F4 IS and it is a wonderful lens. I bought it for the weight difference over the 2.8 IS. Now that the 2.8 Mk.II is out and has rave reviews I am re-thinking that decision, although I am using my 85/1.8 and 135L more now that I have the 5D3, whereas before they got less play on the 40D.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 20, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> I have the F4 IS and it is a wonderful lens. I bought it for the weight difference over the 2.8 IS. Now that the 2.8 Mk.II is out and has rave reviews I am re-thinking that decision, although I am using my 85/1.8 and 135L more now that I have the 5D3, whereas before they got less play on the 40D.



FWIW, I shoot the f/4 IS as well... and having also shot the 2.8 IS II, I'm regretting not getting that one instead. 

Not to say that the f/4 isn't great, I love it. Its a fantastic lens.

Its just that the knowledge that theres the 2.8 IS II......


----------



## daniemare (Apr 20, 2012)

I have a 500D and the non-IS was my first L lens. (And as many will confess, not my last)

I was also debating IS vs. non-IS. I am purely a hobbyist so price was a factor.

Here was my thought process. 
- On a crop body, 70-200 will be an unlikely choice for indoor use (where the IS makes up a bit for the F4).
- I wanted the zoom for oudoor use, specifically child sport - where high shutterspeeds are called for in any case
- Being Canon's cheapest L lens, there are many options on Kijiji/Craigslit/e-Bay.

So I decided to get the non-IS as I a managed a deal on Kijiji for a very good copy for $400. That plus my $800 100 F2.8L macro set me back less than what the IS version is - even used in Canada. You will be surprised what people will take even if they are "firm" on their prices.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 20, 2012)

daniemare said:


> - On a crop body, 70-200 will be an unlikely choice for indoor use (where the IS makes up a bit for the F4).


I agree, the 70-200 has only ever been used outdoors at events and the like for me on a crop body. That may change this year with the new FF though, time will tell.


----------

