Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS vs. Non IS

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS vs. Non IS

 
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
With the rebate, I can get the non IS version for HALF the price of the IS
one. I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver? I'd like to
have the IS, but the price of admission is just insane. I'd expect the IS
verion to cost in the $700-800 range, but north of $1,000? Wow!
-S


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
In message <4588ffb4$(E-Mail Removed)>, SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)>
writes
>I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?


From:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx

"If you do not need or can't afford the IS version of the Canon 70-200mm
f/4 lens, consider the non-IS version as the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Lens is still the great lens it has always been."

Regards,
--
Neil
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
C Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
On 12/20/06 8:29 AM, in article http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed),
"Neil" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In message <4588ffb4$(E-Mail Removed)>, SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)>
> writes
>> I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?

>
> From:
>
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx
>
> "If you do not need or can't afford the IS version of the Canon 70-200mm
> f/4 lens, consider the non-IS version as the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM
> Lens is still the great lens it has always been."
>
> Regards,


The bottom line on this is that which lens produces the better image quality
is totally up to you. Factors that would favor the non-IS would be mostly
shooting with a tripod at the longer focal lengths, mostly always using fast
shutter speeds, and your personal ability at hand holding.
A good test of this is borrow/rent one of these lenses or try one at a
photography store. Zoom to 200mm and focus on something pretty far away,
how much does the object jump around in the viewfinder w/o IS?

 
Reply With Quote
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:C1AEE522.6F72A%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com. ..
> On 12/20/06 8:29 AM, in article (E-Mail Removed),
> "Neil" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In message <4588ffb4$(E-Mail Removed)>, SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> writes
>>> I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?

>>
>> From:
>>
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx
>>
>> "If you do not need or can't afford the IS version of the Canon 70-200mm
>> f/4 lens, consider the non-IS version as the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM
>> Lens is still the great lens it has always been."
>>
>> Regards,

>
> The bottom line on this is that which lens produces the better image
> quality
> is totally up to you. Factors that would favor the non-IS would be mostly
> shooting with a tripod at the longer focal lengths, mostly always using
> fast
> shutter speeds, and your personal ability at hand holding.
> A good test of this is borrow/rent one of these lenses or try one at a
> photography store. Zoom to 200mm and focus on something pretty far away,
> how much does the object jump around in the viewfinder w/o IS?
>

I plan not to carry a tripod most of the time. I have the XTi and pan to
shoot at ISO 400 if needed. As much as I would love to have the IS version,
Canon made it a painful decision by pricing it over $1000. I can buy
another lens or two for the difference.
-S


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
I have the 2.8 version of this lens with IS. My main interest is
shooting sports at shutter speeds of at least 1/800. I find the IS to be
of no use at these speeds, but below 1/500 or so it is a gem.

SimonLW wrote:
> "C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
> news:C1AEE522.6F72A%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com. ..
>
>>On 12/20/06 8:29 AM, in article (E-Mail Removed),
>>"Neil" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message <4588ffb4$(E-Mail Removed)>, SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>writes
>>>
>>>>I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?
>>>
>>>From:
>>>
>>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx
>>>
>>>"If you do not need or can't afford the IS version of the Canon 70-200mm
>>>f/4 lens, consider the non-IS version as the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM
>>>Lens is still the great lens it has always been."
>>>
>>>Regards,

>>
>>The bottom line on this is that which lens produces the better image
>>quality
>>is totally up to you. Factors that would favor the non-IS would be mostly
>>shooting with a tripod at the longer focal lengths, mostly always using
>>fast
>>shutter speeds, and your personal ability at hand holding.
>>A good test of this is borrow/rent one of these lenses or try one at a
>>photography store. Zoom to 200mm and focus on something pretty far away,
>>how much does the object jump around in the viewfinder w/o IS?
>>

>
> I plan not to carry a tripod most of the time. I have the XTi and pan to
> shoot at ISO 400 if needed. As much as I would love to have the IS version,
> Canon made it a painful decision by pricing it over $1000. I can buy
> another lens or two for the difference.
> -S
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kinon O'Cann
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
I've got the non-IS version, and it's a gem. Small and light, smooth
zooming, and very sharp throughout the entire range. No negatives for this
lens for me.

"SimonLW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4588ffb4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> With the rebate, I can get the non IS version for HALF the price of the IS
> one. I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver? I'd like
> to have the IS, but the price of admission is just insane. I'd expect the
> IS verion to cost in the $700-800 range, but north of $1,000? Wow!
> -S
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
"Kinon O'Cann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wfkih.4951$WS4.4124@trndny07...
> I've got the non-IS version, and it's a gem. Small and light, smooth
> zooming, and very sharp throughout the entire range. No negatives for this
> lens for me.
>
> "SimonLW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4588ffb4$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> With the rebate, I can get the non IS version for HALF the price of the
>> IS one. I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver? I'd
>> like to have the IS, but the price of admission is just insane. I'd
>> expect the IS verion to cost in the $700-800 range, but north of $1,000?
>> Wow!
>> -S
>>

>
>

Thanks for your and the others' input. I now have the 70-200mm f/4. I just
put in the order.
-S


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b Mike Henley Digital Photography 43 12-15-2004 05:21 PM
non-canon flash with canon g5? frans Digital Photography 4 03-04-2004 09:26 AM
non-managed / non-COM .dll reference in ASP.NET app Laszlo Szijarto ASP .Net 0 07-02-2003 04:16 PM



Advertisments