70-200mm F4L IS and non IS

lvan · 12-30-2010, 06:43 PM

I have decided to get this lens. So I wonder if anyone has the lens that I would be able to see how it performs in real life. I just want to get a feel how it is before I pick it up. I don't have too much experince with L lenses, as well as this particular lens being closed lens against water/dust issues. I would not mind to pitch in for a coffee or anything during these warm days.

**T.Dot_E30** · 12-30-2010, 07:32 PM

Buy it from Henry's they have a 14day return policy.

I know a few people, who 'rents' a few lenses and tries them before determining which to buy.

lvan · 01-06-2011, 01:54 AM

^Thanks, but I think I am gonna go with Future Shop. I love their customer service. Purchasing is not an issue, I was looking for someone that has it already so I can see how it performs. Thanks again.

Axxe · 01-06-2011, 10:29 PM

Well, what other lenses do you have? What body do you have? What are your plans photography wise, as in, what do you plan on using the lens on.

terrence330 · 01-09-2011, 07:54 PM

I used to have the 70-200 F4L non IS and now i upgraded to the 2.8L IS

out of all 4 of the 70-200 L lenses, the F4L non IS is the sharpest.
In my point of view, I think the IS on the F4L is unnecessary. The non IS is much lighter. IF there is a budget constraint from getting the 2.8L IS, you might as well to consider F4 or F2.8 non IS. I believe 2.8 non IS is only slightly more expensive than f4L IS

lvan · 01-11-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxe

Well, what other lenses do you have? What body do you have? What are your plans photography wise, as in, what do you plan on using the lens on.

I apologize about the delay. When it comes to the body, I am using my Canon T1i that I picked up just before my summer vacation in 2010. That DSLR came with a stock 18-55mm IS LENS. I went with that one because it has a video recording feature as well as THE Nikon D90.. That would leave me with some cash left over to pitch in for a decent L lens. I am thinking of using the lens for my aviation photos, as well as nature upon new a vacation.

lvan · 01-11-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrence330

I used to have the 70-200 F4L non IS and now i upgraded to the 2.8L IS

out of all 4 of the 70-200 L lenses, the F4L non IS is the sharpest.
In my point of view, I think the IS on the F4L is unnecessary. The non IS is much lighter. IF there is a budget constraint from getting the 2.8L IS, you might as well to consider F4 or F2.8 non IS. I believe 2.8 non IS is only slightly more expensive than f4L IS

That is exactly what my friend told me.(A Photography nerd) He also brought up that IS feature may play a factor if you are taking images where it is dark. I was not quite sure what he meant but, I suppose the IS makes it focus better in limited light. As you have pointed the pros of non IS version, the F4L is the best lens that money can buy from what I see. The question really comes down to if I really need IS or no. I can always upgrade down the road if I end up getting F4L. Thank you

**T.Dot_E30** · 01-12-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvan

I was not quite sure what he meant but, I suppose the IS makes it focus better in limited light.

IS allows you to use a slower shutter speed(1-3 stops) in low light, to take better/less blurry shots handheld. It's still always better to use a tri-pod, in which case IS does nothing. It doesn't really have anything to do with the camera 'focusing', but since without it, images are easier to blur due to the camera movement and longer shutter, I can see would you would think that.

If you plan on shotting alot in low light, i'd go for the 2.8 non-IS vs. 4f IS, assuming the prices aren't far off.

lvan · 01-12-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.Dot_E30

IS allows you to use a slower shutter speed(1-3 stops) in low light, to take better/less blurry shots handheld. It's still always better to use a tri-pod, in which case IS does nothing. It doesn't really have anything to do with the camera 'focusing', but since without it, images are easier to blur due to the camera movement and longer shutter, I can see would you would think that.

If you plan on shotting alot in low light, i'd go for the 2.8 non-IS vs. 4f IS, assuming the prices aren't far off.

I think you hit the spot on. Thanks for making it clear.

terrence330, btw isn't F4L non IS a bit old already for someone like me to buy it now? I think it has been on the market for sometime now... I am not too pushy on buying the latest just to brag about it, If it is something that I appreciate it, I just get it. Just to get your input before I wrap it up.

terrence330 · 01-30-2011, 12:57 AM

sorry for the late reply but seriously...it doesnt matter if it is a bit old or not.

If anything, you can always pick up a used one for cheap. i can assure you you wont be disappointed.

i dont know if i mentioned before but non IS version is MUCH lighter so there is less chance that your hand will shake lol

BiBimBap · 02-01-2011, 08:59 PM

Not sure if you picked up the lens already but here's my two cents worth.

When I was using Canon (switched to the dark side about 4 years ago) I had the 70-200 f4 non-IS version for about 3 years.

It was sharp. It was durable. It focused fast. And also mentioned by the previous post - it's MUCH lighter than the IS version - which does help handholding the sucker.

I never had a problem with water/dust/fungus with the lens - and I shot with it in the snow (whistler) and the desert (well.. Vegas...) Those L lenses are built to last.

And speaking of lasting.. don't worry about the age of the lens. I've bought almost all my lenses used and if it's a good one.. it'll continue being a good one for a long while.

Of all my Canon equipment that I've sold when I made my switch - it was the white F4 that I missed the most.

Good luck with your new lens. You'll love it.

lvan · 02-01-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiBimBap

Not sure if you picked up the lens already but here's my two cents worth.

When I was using Canon (switched to the dark side about 4 years ago) I had the 70-200 f4 non-IS version for about 3 years.

It was sharp. It was durable. It focused fast. And also mentioned by the previous post - it's MUCH lighter than the IS version - which does help handholding the sucker.

I never had a problem with water/dust/fungus with the lens - and I shot with it in the snow (whistler) and the desert (well.. Vegas...) Those L lenses are built to last.

And speaking of lasting.. don't worry about the age of the lens. I've bought almost all my lenses used and if it's a good one.. it'll continue being a good one for a long while.

Of all my Canon equipment that I've sold when I made my switch - it was the white F4 that I missed the most.

Good luck with your new lens. You'll love it.

Thank you. I will pick it up right after the month of February since it is too cold now. In March/April I can play with it as well as test it out at the airport. I also don't think it is worth getting a used one because most sellers are asking 50-100 dollars less than a brand new one. The resale seems good, but I am also new to L lenses so people may try to sell a faulty one.

Derek · 02-09-2011, 04:03 PM

^Got a mint 70-200 F4L non IS for sale with UV Filter asking $600. Definitely not faulty LOL shoot me a pm if ur interested, oh and used L lenses in mint condition wont drop too hard in price if its well taken care of.

heres some pics ive taken with it