zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

I have had both of these. Sold the non -IS as it was rather soft at 150-200. Bought a used IS version from B&H for $899 two months ago. This one is sharp all the way to 200mm. Now this one is excellent for walk around with IS.

teacherdad48 Loc: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

Take a look at the Tamron SP 70-200 2.8 with VC. It's a great lens and it may be around the same price as the L without IS.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

That doesn't make sense to me. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4.0 is one stop. IS is worth a minimum of two stops. So it seems you would be better off with f/4.0 with IS than with f/2.8 without IS.

If you are concerned about price, check out the Tamron equivalent. They are slightly sharper than the equivalent Nikon zooms and also lower in price.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

I own an original f2.8L IS and it is a great lens. Tack sharp!! Sense they brought out the ver. II many pro's have upgraded so used originals are available at reasonable prices.

Jim D

jimbrown3 Loc: Naples, FL

I bought the f4 non IS and returned it because: The physical length is that of a 200mm lens and I found it hard to hand hold.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If size and weight are a concern, check out the Micro-Four-Thirds format. Panasonic makes a Lumix GH4 camera and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, the combination of which covers about the same as a full frame camera with a 70-200 zoom.

The GH4 and 35-100 weigh about one third what a full frame camera and 70-200 f/2.8 would weigh... There are some trade-offs, but for many kinds of work, they don't amount to a hill of beans.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

? ?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Since most shooting at weddings is done hand-held, the IS function is a very welcome feature to have. You'll appreciate it! Probably should consider the/f2.8 version as well. You probably be using flash, but their will be plenty circumstances, were a faster lens comes in handy.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Personally, I shoot with the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM lens. Usually it's mounted to my Canon 6D, which a great low light camera. I can adjust the ISO to make up the difference of the one f stop. The IS is a great tool when you're making tough shots by hand. Or, just switch it off when on a tripod. If you buy the lens without IS you can only wish you had it, if you have IS, you get the shot. Just picture capturing a running antelope beside your car, leaning out the window, without IS. Now, imagine the same shot, and switching IS on.

B

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

IS on the Canon lens is close to 4 stops. When you are shooting at 200mm first you will appreciate the steady image, and second, you will be able to handhold the lens down to 1/15 of a second easily and get sharp shots. I challenge anybody's stead hands to do the same without IS.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Sorry for the double post. Here are three shots all full out at 200mm that would not have happened without IS (VR in my case, with Nikon). The last two were shot in the dead of night in Hong Kong. I could shoot them comfortably at ISO 1600, instead of having to crank it up to 12800...

NYC street scene

(Download)

HK Umbrella Revolution

(Download)

HK Umbrella Revolution

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

That's incorrect. In fact, the IS f4L is several years newer (2nd newest) and is one of two of the five Canon 70-200s that uses a fluorite element to deliver superior sharpness. The other one that uses fluorite is the latest 70-200/2.8L IS Mark II and these two are pretty comparable in sharpness at all apertures they share.

But, hey, don't take my word for it.... Compare test images made with the two EF 70-200/4 Canon lenses here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=104&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Notice that they're pretty comparable at the center, but the IS lens offers slightly better image sharpness off-center and is definitely sharper farther out at the edges and in the corners. The superiority of the IS lens is most obvious at the 70mm end of the zoom range, with both lenses wide open at f4... There's less difference at the 200mm end of the zoom range.

Actually all five of the Canon 70-200s are pretty darned good. But you can see the differences in various lab tests on a number of websites to confirm:

- The 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS "II" are not only the two newest, they are also the sharpest of the bunch, probably due in part to their use of fluorite. And they also both feature 3-4 stop IS.

- The older 70-200/2.8 IS "I" (2-3 stop IS) and 70-200/4 non-IS are slightly less sharp and fairly comparable at apertures they share. It's not "bad" by any means and they are certainly very usable wide open, but stop them down to f4 and f5.6 respectively and they both sharpen up more fully. To put the difference in perspective, I haven't yet been able to justify spending $2000 to update from my trusty old 70-200/2.8 IS "I" to the latest and greatest "Mark II"! Eventually I'll wear the 15 year old lens out, I'm sure, but it's still a very good performer.

The oldest 70-200/2.8 non-IS is the least sharp pencil in the drawer, though it really is pretty darned good, too.

I have no reason to believe that the IS lenses are less reliable and more maintenance free, either. All five of the Canon 70-200s to date have been real workhorses, highly durable IS or not, pretty well sealed and fully internal focusing designs. I've been shooting with various IS lenses for as much as 15 years (including that 70-200/2.8 IS "I" ) without any issues or failures that I'd attribute to the IS or larger number of lens elements. One of my most used zooms, the 70-200/2.8 IS has probably taken upwards of 100,000 images.... maybe closer to 200,000.

I did have an AF system failure with my 300/2.8 IS... and an aperture issue with a 28-135mm.... both completely unrelated to their IS systems. But all of my other Canon IS (and non-IS for that matter) lenses - young and old - have never even given a hiccup... and they haven't had an easy life!

Some other differences: The Canon 70-200/4 lenses are about 2/3 the size and weight of the f2.8 versions. They also do not come with, but can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The f2.8 lenses include a t'pod ring. All the 70-200s are L-series, which means they come with lens hoods. The f2.8 use a "tulip" style hood, while the f4 lenses use a "plain" but equally effective hood. The two f2.8 IS lenses also have a little more sealing against dust and moisture, than the other 3 lenses. Mostly this is just a rubber o-ring on the bayonet mount (the ring on mine tore off years ago), but might include some other add'l seals around the switches and moving rings. Not that they are waterproof or entirely dust proof... No Canon lens is. Some are just a little more "resistant".

Ultimately, with any lens longer than, say, 70 or 100mm where you have a choice of IS or not... I would always say get the stabilized lens! It is a very valuable feature and can at times make the difference between getting the shot or not. In most cases with Canon, if there have been or are both IS and non-IS versions, the IS version will be newer and often is optically better, too. However, the IS version typically cost more and many of the non-IS lenses are quite good performers, too, if your budget doesn't allow for the IS version.

EDIT:



Unlike some other IS lenses, that's not necessary with any of the 70-200s with IS. If on a tripod without any movement, the 70-200 IS self-detects and automatically turns itself off.

Yes, many of the Canon lens manuals suggest turning it off... but that's just to save a small amount of battery power that the IS will use (not much, BTW... I often shoot all day with IS running nearly constantly, without need to change batteries).



The Tamron is a good, and very well-respected lens. However, it's about $200 more than the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS (about $50 more if you get the tripod ring for the Canon lens, too)... and it's a lot larger and heavier. If you were looking at the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II, the Tamron costing $700 less certainly is a more attractive alternative. But not if you are considering the smaller and lighter Canon 70-200/4 IS, which still gives sharper edges and corners, as well as better contrast than the Tamron, particularly noticeable at f4 and throughout the focal length range.

With any third party lens, you also have to be a little concerned about future compatibility. There have been more than a few cases of Tamron... and especially Sigma... lenses that weren't compatible with a new Canon camera model. However, Canon L-series lenses are guaranteed to be fully compatible with all Canon EOS cameras past, present and future. Sometimes the third party lens manufacturer offers an update for an older lens that's incompatible with a newer camera, but also sometimes they don't. Sort of depends upon whether the lens is very current, how valuable the lens is, and whether it's even possible to make a fix rather simply, such as through a firmware update.

Bigstrike Mike Loc: Sacramento

Have the IS model, awesome lens. My avatar was taken with the 70-200 IS.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

I had the f/2.8 IS and sent it back because I felt it was too heavy and bulky for what I wanted. I got the f/4 IS version and have been so happy with it!!! I don't know how the non IS model could be any sharper but I've never run any tests to prove that statement ... or not. I do know that the f/4 IS lens is light, extremely sharp and fun to use. I only use it hand held and rarely turn off the IS. Having fun is the best part of capturing images like these. Yes, I'm one lucky individual. Best, J. Goffe

70-200mm lens @ 111mm


70-200mm lens @ 200mm


70-200mm lens @ 200mm

canon Lee

Hi I own a company that does "picture Day", head shots, portraits, weddings, special events, etc. I shoot mostly with Canon 24mm-105mm L F4 IS lens. It pretty much is an all around lens. I do sports shooting as well and use the EF-70mm-200mm F4 IS. I shoot in JPEG for sports and Raw for everything else. I bump up the ISO in order to get a faster shutter speed. I use a mono pod so I don't use IS, but count on my camera Servo to keep me on track. I don't feel that IS is that important when using fast shutter speeds. But I have IS on my 70-200mm just in case it is an indoor shoot.