which lens is best? I am ready to get a canon 70-200mm lens and I am deciding between the F4 IS and the one without image stabilization. I will be using it for some portraits and some...

caseyw

I am ready to get a canon 70-200mm lens and I am deciding between the F4 IS and the one without image stabilization. I will be using it for some portraits and some action shots. I do not use a tripod and I wonder if the IS would be better for me?

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Sure it would. Anytime you can get something to make the lens more stabile take it. If you afford the extra buck why would you not. If you were going to put it on a tripod and never take it off you may want to save and get the older model. - Dave

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Definitely- go for the IS, you'll regret it otherwise !

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

70-200/f2.8L II USM - well you asked. Kidding aside, both versions you mentioned are equal in IQ, but to have IS on a lens like that is a really nice thing to have! It is not all that much more expensive, I would go for the IS version (mighty fine lens, btw.).

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

IS for sure. Will allow you to shoot handheld at lower shutter speeds and/or smaller aperatures. ;)

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

Unless your hand held technique is really good then go for the IS. You'll find it's worth it.

Novots Loc: Grand Forks, ND

If you were to say that you would use it mostly for portraits and on a tripod then you don't need IS, in fact you would be recommended to turn off the IS under those circumstances. And, if you are shooting action sports at a high shutter rate, the IS is not that much of a help. Like mentioned elsewhere, if money is no object by all means get the IS. You can't go wrong with any of them, one of the best lenses of all time! If you can get the 2.8, that may be as or more important than the IS. JMHO!

cthahn

caseyw wrote:

I am ready to get a canon 70-200mm lens and I am deciding between the F4 IS and the one without image stabilization. I will be using it for some portraits and some action shots. I do not use a tripod and I wonder if the IS would be better for me?

Anyone who does not use a tripod is not much of a photographer.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Ditto Novots. Good advice.

georgeretired Loc: Manitoba Canada

Novots wrote:

If you were to say that you would use it mostly fo... (show quote)

agreed. Certainly go for the apture level over the IS. Adding IS to the body is costly, well it is in Canada.

jrb1213 Loc: McDonough GEorgia

cthahn wrote:

Anyone who does not use a tripod is not much of a photographer.

The most powerful photographs ever taken were taken without a tripod. As examples we have
The pictures of Phan Thi Kim Phuc,
Raising the flag on Iwo Jima,
Elizabeth Ekford Central High School 1957,
and all the photos of September 11

Most of the worst pictures ever taken were taken with a tripod. (graduation pictures)
It is not the tripod that makes a photographer good or bad.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

speters wrote:

70-200/f2.8L II USM - well you asked. Kidding aside, both versions you mentioned are equal in IQ, but to have IS on a lens like that is a really nice thing to have! It is not all that much more expensive, I would go for the IS version (mighty fine lens, btw.).

The 70-200mm f4 non-IS is older technology and in my opinion the IQ is slightly less than the IS version. The non-IS version has 16 lens elements in 13 groups while the IS version has 20 lens elements in 15 groups.

I prefer the IS version since I usually do not use a tripod. The IS version of the 70-200mm has great image stabilization, well worth the extra for me.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

caseyw wrote:

I am ready to get a canon 70-200mm lens and I am deciding between the F4 IS and the one without image stabilization. I will be using it for some portraits and some action shots. I do not use a tripod and I wonder if the IS would be better for me?

Caseyw, Absolutely Yes. I use the 70-200 often and find the IS a great and needed feature. The image on the left is taken hand held with that lens. I'll attach a larger version. Best, J. Goffe

Aplomado Falcon in flight

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Just remember; IS doesn't help freeze action so an f/4 IS isn't equal to a 2.8 lens just because you can hold it at slower shutter speeds. You might need higher shutter speeds anyway to freeze action (sports or otherwise)

the f/2.8 version of this lens is pretty darn big....not something you want to carry around all of the time.

The f/4 is definitely lighter and smaller...just something to think about.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

cthahn wrote:

Anyone who does not use a tripod is not much of a photographer.

All blanket statements are wrong :)