A&P Canon EF 70-200/4,0 L IS USM vs 70-200/4,0 "none IS2

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Smeghead, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Smeghead

    Smeghead New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klingonlandia
    Canon EF 70-200/4,0 L IS USM vs 70-200/4,0 "none IS"

    Just for fun I'm looking at telezoom lenses online.

    Now I just came across the Canon 70-200 and noticed that there is one with IS and one without. Is that the only difference between them? I noticed comparing the price it's almost as twice as expensive with the IS one.

    If the IS is the only difference between them, is it really worth almost twice amount of money for the IS version?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  2. asdfbunk

    asdfbunk A Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    29,807
    Likes Received:
    7
    to you? maybe not.

    it is worth it though
     
  3. tehshocker

    tehshocker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SlC YUTAH
    Get the 2.8 instead of the f/4
     
  4. Smeghead

    Smeghead New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klingonlandia
    My current lens that I use (Tamron 17-50mm) doesn't have any image stabilization / anti camera shake feature and I'm not bothered by it all (as long as I shot in daytime that is :o ). I never used a telezoom lens before. I don't know, maybe it's more sensitive with camera shake when you're using a telezoom?
     
  5. Smeghead

    Smeghead New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klingonlandia
    Woah, just checked, that's even more expensive. Jesus, don't tell me the only difference is that it's 2.8 instead of 4 :eek4:
     
  6. asdfbunk

    asdfbunk A Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    29,807
    Likes Received:
    7
    that's a huge difference

    oh it comes with the tripod collar too :mamoru:
     
  7. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I had the f4 non-IS and upgraded to the IS version. I think it's worth it.

    What kind of shooting will you be using it for? I use mine outside so I didn't need the f2.8. Most consider the f4 version sharper than the f2.8 version.

    If you are going to be shooting indoors or in low light I'd try to save up for the f2.8, but it is a LOT bigger than the f4 version.
     
  8. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I'd go 2.8 non-IS

    mainly because I use it indoors and for sports (fast shutter speed makes IS useless)
     
  9. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    2.8 non IS dooo ettttt
     
  10. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,389
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    just get the f/2.8 IS
     
  11. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
     
  12. ZCP M3

    ZCP M3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    I went with the 70-200 f/4 non IS to replace my shitty 75-300 f/3.5-5.6 non-USM zoom. Worth every penny of the $500 I paid for it. Fast focusing, sharp as a tack, and light enough that I don't notice it.

    At some point I'll be upgrading to the f/4 IS. The f/2.8 is too damn heavy for me and I can't justify the extra $ as I rarely shoot wide open.
     
  13. Perkwunos

    Perkwunos Dog Bones OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    10,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Abu Dhabi, UAE
    2.8 IS is an amazing lens, I personally would not buy anything but that lens after using it.
     
  14. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,602
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    :rofl:
     
  15. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    IS is a must on a long lens like that.
     
  16. wizeguy4

    wizeguy4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Allentown, PA
    I am actually trading a guy locally this afternoon my 70-200 f2.8 IS for his 70-200 f4 IS and cash

    Why? I dont make use of the 2.8 lens havent picked it up in months. yeah it is great indoors but on a crop body the starting length of 70mm is usually too far for me for what I would use it for.

    plus the f4 IS is considered the sharpest of all the 4 players in the L zoom game
     
  17. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,602
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    i've got the f4 IS and love it. i've rented the 2.8 IS a few times before i purchased this, and don't really miss the extra stop
     
  18. wizeguy4

    wizeguy4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Allentown, PA
    so I got teh f4 now and it is like half the size and weight of my 2.8 What is nice is that I also got the receipt from the original purchase of the lens, made on Jan 7 2009
     
  19. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,389
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    :rofl:
     
  20. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Keep in mind the f4 IS has a 4-stop version of IS and the f2.8 only has a 3-stop IS.
     
  21. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    It's subjective. Some may never shoot wide open in low light at 200mm, others will. Personally, I've shot numerous times at 1/15-1/30 at 200mm, f/2.8 only possible with the IS. It's worth the few extra hundred bucks for people that don't have bodies that have good high ISO image quality.
     
  22. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    it depends, yeah maybe if you are at the zoo shooting sitting animals, but not at any type of sporting event or even trying to shoot a subject with the least bit of activity (kids, animals, etc).
     
  23. OneTwo

    OneTwo me>you OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    30,111
    Likes Received:
    91
    I fucking loved my 2.8 IS. That thing never came off the camera. It's absolutely worth every dime if you need some low light shots. It more then paid for itself after shooting a baseball game that was moved back to from 3pm to 5pm and I still had to use ISO 800-1000 to get the shots.

    I recently tried a tamron 18-270 IS and will be getting that next. I was blown away by the quality of it compared to the L. Sure the L beats it in everything, but not enough to justify the 3x cost for someone like myself.
     
  24. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,389
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    200mm is not long

    :gtfo:
     

Share This Page