Image stabilized versus not: Canon 70-200 f/4

09/27/2009 03:33:25 PM · #1

I'm wondering if any of fine folk out there have had experience using the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS versus the non-IS f/4 version of that lens. I'm asking because I did have the non-IS version - I almost always shoot handheld, and I found I had trouble with camera shake with that lens. I'm wondering if the IS version is enough to help with that. (Keep in mind I'm kinda older-ish and I have problems with my wrists/thumbs.)

I also wonder how so many of you afford AND carry about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'd need my own personal lens-carrying-person to handle that baby.

Appreciate any input anyone has to offer. Thanks!

09/27/2009 04:20:25 PM · #2

I've owned both, and yes, the IS version would solve your image shake issues.

luvmyaussie

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

09/27/2009 04:21:17 PM · #3

Deb, I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and I LOVE it. I have never had a blurry photo with it, and it is sharp as a tack.

I do highly recommend the f/4 IS...

Message edited by author 2009-09-27 16:22:34.

09/27/2009 04:39:05 PM · #4

Thanks, guys - your input is very much appreciated!

PhotoDave

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

09/27/2009 09:02:51 PM · #5

IMO you are better off having it and not needing it than needing it and not having it ;)

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/27/2009 09:22:27 PM · #6

What the heck? Deb wants a long tele? For what? Close up candids of human and avian nostrils?

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/27/2009 09:29:58 PM · #7

What the hell Deb, some of your best stuff is blurry or out of focus, don't go all tack sharp on us now:-) I owed the f/4 non IS and now own the f/2.8 IS and the extra stop aside the IS is worth it on the tele lenses, go for it and you won't be sorry.

ErikV

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

09/27/2009 10:01:07 PM · #8

I have the Nikon 70-200, and based on that I would definitely recommend IS as this should solve the majority of your shaking problems. Yes, the beast weighs a ton. But that is why weight training was invented. :-)

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

09/27/2009 11:42:06 PM · #9

My favorite lens is my 100mm macro with no IS. I wish it had IS! On my cheaper lenses, I wasn't sure it made all that much of a difference, because they weren't very sharp to begin with. But I have it on the 100-400L, and it makes a big difference.

Believe me, you want it whenever you can get it (on a lens, I mean!) :D

Photologist

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/28/2009 12:04:19 AM · #10

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L with IS and it works very well to minimize blur due to camera shake.

If you don't have IS, I suggest shooting at a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate the need for IS. The minimum speed for this is 1/focal length. So if you are shooting at 150mm, then 1/150 sec. is the slowest you should use without a tripod (or possibly a monopod). This is simply a general rule-of-thumb and not an exact science.

As for your other concern (the weight)--yes, it is heavy. For long sporting events, I use a monopod. I've tried shooting games without a monopod (just handholding) and that night, my hands, wrists, and arms were sore from supporting that weight. I carry it with me everywhere (hiking, etc) in a backpack (Tamrac Adventure 9). I could never imagine going out with my gear and leaving this lens at home.

09/28/2009 01:37:31 AM · #11

Originally posted by yanko:

What the heck? Deb wants a long tele? For what? Close up candids of human and avian nostrils?

LOL! I'm getting old and slow, Richard. I may want to sit on the bench with the old gentlemen and shoot from there. Need the tele to get the pigeons without following after them, you know? :-)

Good info. Wendy, I have that 100mm as well, and agree IS would be nice. I've learned I can live with not-perfect just fine. As for the f/2.8 IS version - not a chance. That thing simply weighs too much to be of use to someone who carries and handholds everything, and currently doesn't weigh very much on her own (but I am working on that....) As it is, the bag I use as a walkaround probably won't accomodate the f/4 IS... But I'll worry about that when the lens shows up.

OmanOtter

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/28/2009 03:06:04 AM · #12

Deb: Yes! I had the non-IS and loved it but eventually upgraded to the IS and have found a VERY VERY noticeable difference. I really recommend the upgrade.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

09/28/2009 09:27:35 AM · #13

I have the non-IS version, but I'd buy the IS version if I were doing it again. Either way, it's a great lens.

09/28/2009 09:49:23 AM · #14

Originally posted by Melethia:

As for the f/2.8 IS version - not a chance. That thing simply weighs too much to be of use to someone who carries and handholds everything, and currently doesn't weigh very much on her own (but I am working on that....)

While you're shopping, pick up a good monopod. They're cheap, effective, and bear the weight of a camera and lens for you.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/28/2009 09:53:09 AM · #15

I do have a monopod. I haven't become comfortable with using it. You gotta realize that my "style" of shooting, in general, is to simply wander around populated areas and shoot things. To carry a camera with a monopod attached looks a bit, umm, obvious. Then again, this lens will be a bit more obvious than my other lenses are at present, won't it? Anyway, in general, I'm only ever noticed by dogs, pigeons, and children. Adults tend to be oblivious to my presence. I'm thinking a monopod might upset that dynamic...

But for some stuff, yeah, I should learn to use my monopod. Which unfortunately means I should have ordered the tripod support ring thingie for that lens, huh? Duh.... Next go 'round at B&H for that.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

09/28/2009 10:08:47 AM · #16

I would also recommend the IS, I wish I had it on all my lenses. As far as the weight of the 2.8, you do get used to it. For the first couple of months it seemed really heavy, now the other lenses just seem light.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/28/2009 10:10:42 AM · #17

Originally posted by Melethia:

Then again, this lens will be a bit more obvious than my other lenses are at present, won't it?

You might consider the 70-300 IS as an alternative. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, a less-conspicuous black, gives you more reach, and offers near-L image quality.

Originally posted by Melethia:

Which unfortunately means I should have ordered the tripod support ring thingie for that lens, huh?

Nah, you don't need a ring with the 70-200 f/4. It's light enough to hang off the camera without issue.

Message edited by author 2009-09-28 10:11:07.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

09/28/2009 10:19:30 AM · #18

Originally posted by Melethia:

Which unfortunately means I should have ordered the tripod support ring thingie for that lens, huh?

Are you talking about the 70-200 L lens? If so, it comes with the tripod swivel support mount. That mount is also teflon coated so that pivoting from landscape to portrait orientation is smooth and effortless.

It also comes with a nice carrying case with shoulder strap. At least my f/2.8 did. I thought that the f/4 did, as well.

Message edited by author 2009-09-28 10:21:33.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/28/2009 10:21:28 AM · #19

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Are you talking about the 70-200 L lens? If so, it comes with the tripod swivel support mount. It also comes with a nice carrying case with shoulder strap. At least my f/2.8 did.

The f/2.8 version comes with it because that lens is so heavy. The ring is optional on the f/4.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

09/28/2009 10:22:17 AM · #20

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Are you talking about the 70-200 L lens? If so, it comes with the tripod swivel support mount. It also comes with a nice carrying case with shoulder strap. At least my f/2.8 did.

The f/2.8 version comes with it because that lens is so heavy. The ring is optional on the f/4.

Alright. That's good to know.

09/28/2009 11:02:36 AM · #21

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Then again, this lens will be a bit more obvious than my other lenses are at present, won't it?

You might consider the 70-300 IS as an alternative. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, a less-conspicuous black, gives you more reach, and offers near-L image quality.

Originally posted by Melethia:
Which unfortunately means I should have ordered the tripod support ring thingie for that lens, huh?

Nah, you don't need a ring with the 70-200 f/4. It's light enough to hang off the camera without issue.

You know, Shannon, I did consider the 70-300 - it most likely would have suited my needs just fine, and as you point out, would be less conspicuous than the 70-200. I may make a nice little knitted cover for it... Anyway, I think what I used to sway myself (because, really, it's very silly for me to get a big lens... as Yanko points out, do I want nose hairs or what?) was the f4 continuous. I believe the 70-300 was graduated over the range with 5.6 at the high end, and for some reason I didn't want that.

Good to hear the f/4 can be supported by the camera. I won't use a tripod or monopod often, but good to know it'll work when I do. I'm figuring it might not work with the GorillaPod, though. :-)

mitalapo

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV