# 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4



## CanonMan (Jun 5, 2013)

Hi. I have the original 70-200L f/4 and it's great as everyone knows. I have just purchased a 60D for a great price so now I have some extra $$$ for a new L lens. 
I see a lot of comparisons between the 70-300L and the 70-200L f/4 IS but not the version that I use.

Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?

I shoot 80% of my pictures over 70mm so the 24-105L has to wait 

If there is an IQ difference then the 70-300L is a no brainer for me.

Thanks in advance for your comments.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 5, 2013)

I own the f4 IS version. As I understand it, the IS version is slightly better optically than the non IS version- possibly more to do with corner resolution than centre center resolution but I don't think it's a huge difference, *IF* you don't need the image stabilisation (I find it very useful personally) or weather sealing you may as well keep the non IS version and put the money elsewhere. YMMV.

Compare the digital picture's sample crops: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=104&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 5, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Hi. I have the original 70-200L f/4 and it's great as everyone knows. I have just purchased a 60D for a great price so now I have some extra $$$ for a new L lens.
> I see a lot of comparisons between the 70-300L and the 70-200L f/4 IS but not the version that I use.
> 
> Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?
> ...



These three lenses you mentioned are not substantially different from each other. If I were you I'd explore something else. The 24-105 you mentioned would open up new territories. If not, perhaps try 85 1.8 or 135L? My point is unless you upgrade to 70-200 2.8, you might as well keep what you have now.


----------



## CanonMan (Jun 5, 2013)

Hi. Thanks for the comments. I need the extra reach and at the moment I usually have the 70-200F4 mounted with the 1.4 II extender. Therefore this only leaves one option and that is the 100-400L.
Really unsure what to do. Was going to trade in the 70-200F4 against the 70-300L so that I only had one lens on most of the time. Was hoping for slight better IQ though (don't we all  )


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> If not, perhaps try 85 1.8 or 135L? My point is unless you upgrade to 70-200 2.8, you might as well keep what you have now.



-1 - don't underestimate the usefulness of the IS system for these focal lengths esp. for very specialized circumstances like 100% action sports shooting. Look at your pictures, evaluate for how many you'd have liked a shallower dof ([email protected] is already very shallow esp. when the subject is near) and then think about getting the still somewhat reasonably priced and versatile 70-300L, even if it cannot match the iq of the 70-200/2.8Lis2 monster.


----------



## Jim K (Jun 5, 2013)

Don't forget that the 100-400 will be a bit heavier than your 70-200 and some folks do not like the "push=pull" zoom. 

The 100-400 was my first DSLR lens, along with the 28-135 "kit"lens. Within a month I got a monopod to hold it for longer periods of time, within six months I added the 70-200 f/4L IS (and 10-22) because it was so much easier to carry for longer periods of time and I also use it with the 1.4x but then you miss the 70-98 range. I am still considering the 70-300 L as it would give me both the 70-200 and 98-280 ranges without changing the 1.4x.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 5, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Hi. Thanks for the comments. I need the extra reach and at the moment I usually have the 70-200F4 mounted with the 1.4 II extender. Therefore this only leaves one option and that is the 100-400L.
> Really unsure what to do. Was going to trade in the 70-200F4 against the 70-300L so that I only had one lens on most of the time. Was hoping for slight better IQ though (don't we all  )



Broadly speaking I think the 70-300L offers similar resolution to the 70-200 f4 IS so no great difference. The photozone review suggests the 70-300L corner resolution drops further on full frame compared to the 70-200 f4 IS but on a crop camera is as good as the 70-200 f4 IS. What the 70-300 does do is give you 100mm of extra reach in a one lens solution and I've been considering swapping my 70-200 for one for that very reason.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jun 5, 2013)

I have had the same 70-200L f4 non IS for years and never found a reason to upgrade. I did upgrade to a 5DIII and if it's possible the lens looks sharper on the FF. It's a great, sharp lens. you could get a faster lens, you could get an IS lens but you will pay significantly for the upgrade and you really don't get much optically. If the money is burning a hole in your pocket why not look at the 400L 5.6? With a crop camera you have some real telephoto fire power. Probably won't be able to hand hold that one though


----------



## Eimajm (Jun 5, 2013)

I have owned the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and its a great lens, super sharp. I use it mainly for plant photography alongside a 100mm macro and mainly at the 200mm end. I have no complaints at all but would really have like a closer focus to stop me switching between the lenses so much. I have just recently upgraded to a 180mm macro for this reasons but am soo attached to the lens its hard to let it go!


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jun 5, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?


 
Besides IS...

According to photozone.de, the blades of the IS version are rounded, unlike the non-IS ones. 
If you get close enogh to your subject and the background is far, the bokeh of the IS version is nice (I don't know how the non-IS bokeh is).


----------



## Pi (Jun 5, 2013)

As others said, there is a slight optical advantage of the IS version but the IS is what makes the difference. I shoot concerts with the IS version, no problems. It is the most effective IS of all I tried, an that includes the 100L and the 70-200 II.


----------



## Zv (Jun 5, 2013)

The IS version is a newer design, it was released in 2006 whereas the non IS version dates back to 1999! Optically it is better, it has rounded aperture blades and overall build quality is better too. I also think it looks better, especially the switches. The IS version is weather-sealed too. 

The IS is rated to 4-stops, and I have managed that and more. You can get shots that would require a tripod or really high ISOs otherwise. (One downside is that the IS motor is NOISY!)

If you shoot with a tripod all the time then all that is almost irrelevant and the non IS version will suffice. For my style of shooting IS makes all the difference. 

I often wonder about the 70-300L, and whether I should have bought that. It all depends on individual shooting prefrences. Though, if I need reach I quite simply just plonk it on my 7D and am happy.


----------



## lholmes549 (Jun 5, 2013)

I have the non IS like you and am very pleased with the image quality, I wouldn't imagine there would be enough of a difference between the IS and non IS to justify the price in image quality alone. 
I don't know how good the IS is on the 70-200 but I do sometimes wish I had IS on it like my 24-105mm. Personally I've only ever considered upgrading to the 2.8 but even then I don't really need that extra stop so haven't.

My call, if extra reach is what you want, is the 100-400. That or you could go with a 300 f/4 and use your 1.4 TC with it? Depends how much flexibility you need.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 5, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?



I was surprised to read Roger at LensRentals say the non-IS is slightly sharper than the IS version. I don't recall where it was or the context, but that stuck with me since I have the non-IS.

My experience with the non-IS version is that it's stunning when I use it, but I rarely use it. I seem to do very little over 70mm (except for my treasured 135) these days, and the 70-200 non-IS requires a lot of light. Without the IS, I end up with too many unusables.

If I were to do a lot of 70-200 shooting, I'd probably go with the IS version.

As for the 70-300, Roger said if he were buying a 70-300, he'd probably go with the much less expensive consumer version.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 5, 2013)

Honestly 300mm with teleconverter on a cropped body is incredibly far and hard to use handheld. The highest usable before introducing ugly noise is 1600iso on the 60d. The maximum aperture for you is 5.6. Maybe you 'll find a good tripod more useful than IS. Are you a bird shooter?


----------



## eddiemrg (Jun 5, 2013)

Is the bag included with 70-200 f/4 IS USM...?
thanks!


----------



## greger (Jun 5, 2013)

I have the 70-200 IS version and use it with the 1.4Extender since day 1. I needed more reach and did not want to 
Wait for vs two of the 100-400 L lens to come out. I think it will cost more than the $1,549.99 that I paid. I like the
Reach of the 100-400 much more. I am still learning how to best use his lens. If you can wait for vs2 to come out then
Be prepared to pay more than the current price. It will be an awsume lens. I can use my 1.4 and 2 X Extenders with
Both the 70-200 and 100-400 lenses. I do not think the 70-300 can be used with extenders. A 2 X is all most a waste
of time but the 1.4 works flawlessly on the 70-200. Good Luck in making your decision.


----------



## fegari (Jun 5, 2013)

eddiemrg said:


> Is the bag included with 70-200 f/4 IS USM...?
> thanks!



The F4 IS comes with a soft pouch, the 2.8 IS II comes with a rigid pouch.

To the OP´s question: From what I read the 70-200 F4 IS is sharper than the non-IS, additionally the IS will guarantee you sharp photos in low light conditions that the non-IS simply cannot meet, handheld of course. I have the IS and produces incredibly sharp photos event at F4 with a full frame (have not tested yet with a crop sensor). If the choice is between those tow, by all means get the IS without a doubt.

Regarding the dilema for more reach beyond 200mm, I pondered getting the 100-400 or 70-300 in another post but chose instead a 70-200 IS II (despite already having a 70-200 F4 IS that may get sold later) simply because I can put a 2x extender on it. So far I´ve tested both the 70-200´s with a 1.4x II and quality is very, very good beyond f6.3 on the F4 and beyond 5.6 on the IS II (and I have the 85L and both Zeiss Makro Planars to compare sharpness). Based on what I read the 2x will not be as good but very close to the 100-400 at 400mm (some say it is as good). I´m willing to give it a try but it must be with the new 2x III though.

To me, the overall advantage with the 70-200 IS II is complete flexibility:
- you can perfectly use both the 1.4 and 2x extenders 
- you get fantastic versatility from that combo covering 70-400mm and still have 200mm at 2.8 when needed.
- Added bonus you maintain the 1.2meter close up focusing capability of the lens even with the extenders so focusing something at 400mm focal at 1.2meters should be interesting. 
-resell value of the IS II is pretty good, specially if you buy it now that Canon has a cashback on it (at least in my country)
-Finally, when using this on a crop sensor you obviously get 1.6 times more reach but more importantly you can keep ISO on check cause even with the 2x you can guarantee f5.6

The penalty, go figure, is of course the added weight (which I confirm you´ll experince vs the F4 IS) and the fact the 2.8 IS II plus the extenders is the most expensive option, though it is modular as you can sell either the lens or the extenders later if not happy.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 5, 2013)

One thing not mentioned is lens flare. I had a non-IS 70-200/4 for years, but could not shoot into the lght, especially with the sun in the frame, without having objectionable flare. This is one of the reasons I sold it - my 200/2.8 prime is much better.
Here in New Zealand the IS version is almost twice the price of the non-IS. While IS would be nice, its not worth the premium for me. Weather sealing is not important to me. Apart from flare, I was happy with the resolution of the lens on crop and FF.
If I would be buying one of these zooms again, I'd go for the 70-300L, as the reach is important to me on FF.


----------



## Zv (Jun 6, 2013)

I forgot to mention another feature of the 70-200 f/4L IS - there are two IS modes, so if you do panning action shots it can be really useful. The IS can also correct for mirror slap. Overall the IS on this lens is very impressive.


----------



## davidrf (Jun 6, 2013)

I owned a f4 and now I have a f4 IS. In the IS version I noticed a MUCH faster autofocus and a slightly better sharpness


----------



## overniven (Jun 6, 2013)

I have the F4 non IS version and I've gotten quit a few good shots with it with my T1i, but I'd love to have the IS. It was about twice the cost though. At that point in my hobby I was unwilling to pay a grand. 

It was quite a step up from my kit as far as contrast and color.

Can't wait to pair it with a new body with better ISO performance.


----------



## eddiemrg (Jun 7, 2013)

So... Next week I'll probably buy the IS versione forma 1148 euro in a local shop in my town


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 7, 2013)

SwampYankee said:


> ... the 400L 5.6? ... Probably won't be able to hand hold that one though



Only way I use mine ... just chase up the ISO if the shutterspeed falls below 1/500.




Frodo said:


> One thing not mentioned is lens flare. I had a non-IS 70-200/4 for years, but could not shoot into the lght, especially with the sun in the frame, without having objectionable flare.



I don't have this problem with my 70-200mm f/4 ... perhaps your filter caused the flares (or the lack of one)?


----------



## Frodo (Jun 9, 2013)

Frodo said:


> One thing not mentioned is lens flare. I had a non-IS 70-200/4 for years, but could not shoot into the lght, especially with the sun in the frame, without having objectionable flare.



I don't have this problem with my 70-200mm f/4 ... perhaps your filter caused the flares (or the lack of one)?
[/quote]

While I keep filters on most of lenses most of the time, I remove them when shooting into the light. Here is the best photo of a series shooting into the rising sun. The subsequent photos when the sun rose further were unusable (and deleted). This was 200mm @ 5.6 on a 5DII.


----------



## eddiemrg (Jun 9, 2013)

Frodo said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > One thing not mentioned is lens flare. I had a non-IS 70-200/4 for years, but could not shoot into the lght, especially with the sun in the frame, without having objectionable flare.
> ...



While I keep filters on most of lenses most of the time, I remove them when shooting into the light. Here is the best photo of a series shooting into the rising sun. The subsequent photos when the sun rose further were unusable (and deleted). This was 200mm @ 5.6 on a 5DII.





[/quote]

fantastc picture!
I don't use filters anymore... I had some good quality ones but I was never satisfied...


----------

