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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SimonLW, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    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
     
    SimonLW, Dec 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SimonLW

    Neil Guest

    In message <4588ffb4$>, SimonLW <>
    writes
    >I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?


    From:

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-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
     
    Neil, Dec 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SimonLW

    C Wright Guest

    On 12/20/06 8:29 AM, in article ,
    "Neil" <> wrote:

    > In message <4588ffb4$>, SimonLW <>
    > writes
    >> I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?

    >
    > From:
    >
    > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-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?
     
    C Wright, Dec 20, 2006
    #3
  4. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    "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 ,
    > "Neil" <> wrote:
    >
    >> In message <4588ffb4$>, SimonLW <>
    >> writes
    >>> I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?

    >>
    >> From:
    >>
    >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-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
     
    SimonLW, Dec 20, 2006
    #4
  5. SimonLW

    Alan Guest

    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 ,
    >>"Neil" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In message <4588ffb4$>, SimonLW <>
    >>>writes
    >>>
    >>>>I wonder if the image quality is any better in the IS ver?
    >>>
    >>>From:
    >>>
    >>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-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
    >
    >
     
    Alan, Dec 20, 2006
    #5
  6. SimonLW

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:4588ffb4$...
    > 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
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 21, 2006
    #6
  7. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
    news:wfkih.4951$WS4.4124@trndny07...
    > I've got the non-IS version, and it's a gem. Small and light, smooth
    > zooming, and very sharp throughout the entire range. No negatives for this
    > lens for me.
    >
    > "SimonLW" <> wrote in message
    > news:4588ffb4$...
    >> 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
     
    SimonLW, Dec 21, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nickyvonbuskergr

    sigma 120-300 2.8 or canon 70-200 2.8l ,canon 10d

    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    899
  2. Albert Voss

    Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?

    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,722
    Paolo Pizzi
    Apr 11, 2004
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,480
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,653
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Cynicor

    200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8

    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    1,537
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page