70-200 IS f4 or non IS ?? Looking now to upgrade my lens selection.... can't decide on the IS 70-200 f4 Canon lens orthe Non-IS...primary use is wedding's ...senior picts.... children...

ewoody Loc: N.E. Ohio

Looking now to upgrade my lens selection.... can't decide on the IS 70-200 f4 Canon lens orthe Non-IS...primary use is wedding's ...senior picts.... children portraits ect... anyone have any comments or expierience with either ??? thanks

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMHO, the non IS is sharper and in the long run, more reliable and maintenance free. But, for what you want to do, I think the IS will be better for you and worth the extra $4-500. I have the non-IS.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

imagemeister wrote:

IMHO, the non IS is sharper and in the long run, more reliable and maintenance free. But, for what you want to do, I think the IS will be better for you and worth the extra $4-500. I have the non-IS.

I'd second this exact opinion also as a non IS f/4 owner. You might look used at KEH and see also how the the IS f/4 compares in price to the older non IS f/2.8

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

ewoody wrote:

Looking now to upgrade my lens selection.... can't decide on the IS 70-200 f4 Canon lens orthe Non-IS...primary use is wedding's ...senior picts.... children portraits ect... anyone have any comments or expierience with either ??? thanks

With weddings, where you are hand holding most of your shots, and with the variety of non ideal lighting situations, the best lens for the job is the F/2.8L IS . . . the second best choice would be the non IS F/2.8L. The F/4.0L, IS or not, just doesn't hack the low light situations. Even if you never shoot at F/2.8, at F/4.0 the camera will have issues focusing. Remember that the camera focuses with lens wide open, and F/2.8 will let the camera "see" at much lower light levels.
As far as sharpness is concerned, all of the "L" lenses are more than adequate and unless you are a pixel peeper, you would never see the difference with the naked eye.
The suggestion of the older version F/2.8 IS is a great idea.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

If you have image stabilization (IS), you can choose to turn it off.
But if you do not have image stabilization (non-IS), you cannot choose to turn it on.

Kind of a no brainer, don'tcha think?

redpepper Loc: Central NY

I've had the IS version for 5 years and use it for sport shooting. I pan a lot and the IS is the reason I get the subject in focus. The lens is a little bulky for me since I have petite hands. I do get some camera shake if I turn the IS off. My pictures are sharp. I use back button focus and this has helped me with all shooting situations.

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

i have owned both,i do like the 2.8 ,but the 4.0 with
I.S. is about same price,both are great lens,if you can get
the 2.8 with I.S. i think you would be very happy.find
one a few years old.i would not pay the money they want for the new version.the L lens is like money in the bank.
they hold there value.

TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

SonnyE wrote:

If you have image stabilization (IS), you can choose to turn it off.
But if you do not have image stabilization (non-IS), you cannot choose to turn it on.

Kind of a no brainer, don'tcha think?

Buy the IS if you need and turn it off if you don't !!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I could not live without IS. You can handhold shots @200mm at 1/8 of a second. This is especially valuable if you have the f4 version instead of the f2.8

ewoody Loc: N.E. Ohio

Thanks for all the reply information... going to meet this person at noon...like new condition...for $900.00..Gonna try it out first...but he is meeting us at a public location near his home....he has other Canon gear... but this is the one lens I've been wanting for more than a year...looking at some videos on YouTube... and they all concur with your suggestions.thanks very much.!!!!It's nice having other people who have been there....

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

ewoody wrote:

Looking now to upgrade my lens selection.... can't decide on the IS 70-200 f4 Canon lens orthe Non-IS...primary use is wedding's ...senior picts.... children portraits ect... anyone have any comments or expierience with either ??? thanks

At f/4, you'll appreciate the IS version! It will give you a higher percentage of keepers at lower shutter speeds when hand-holding. It won't stop subject motion, of course, but it will compensate for camera shake. I'd definitely get the IS version.

Of course, the f/2.8 version is sharper at f/4 than the f/4 lens, brighter for focusing and composing, auto focuses faster in low light, has shallower depth of field and better bokeh when used wide open, but with two big disadvantages: weight and price.

I've known two pros who own BOTH the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses, because the f/4 lens is so much lighter! When you're using studio strobe or daylight, the f/4 glass is fine. You can hand-hold it MUCH longer, and it's lighter to carry in a bag.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

ewoody wrote:

Looking now to upgrade my lens selection.... can't decide on the IS 70-200 f4 Canon lens orthe Non-IS...primary use is wedding's ...senior picts.... children portraits ect... anyone have any comments or expierience with either ??? thanks

If I were spending the money, and I recently did, I would go for an f/2.8, even used or refurbished. I recently got an "old" Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 from KEH. It was brand new. Large apertures are nice.

Fkaufman3 Loc: Florida, LA ie lower Alabama

The f4 non is is a lot lighter and easier to carry for long shoots, I use bot, but for action shots in lower light the 2.8 is is champ

Benttree Loc: GA.

ewoody, You'l be better of with 70-200mm II2.8L IS . Yes big price, but big are different as well in on the images you results on your shots...On your purpose fast F glass with IS will be nice to have.

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

Unless you have trouble with a steady hand, I'd recommend the non-IS lens. I don't have any IS lenses, except one Sony lens (Sony calls it OSS), and only because a non-IS version of it was not available.