November 23, 2014, 07:23:37 PM

Author Topic: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4  (Read 6165 times)

CanonMan

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« on: June 05, 2013, 05:49:11 AM »
Hi. I have the original 70-200L f/4 and it's great as everyone knows. I have just purchased a 60D for a great price so now I have some extra $$$ for a new L lens.
I see a lot of comparisons between the 70-300L and the 70-200L f/4 IS but not the version that I use.

Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?

I shoot 80% of my pictures over 70mm so the 24-105L has to wait :-)

If there is an IQ difference then the 70-300L is a no brainer for me.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

canon rumors FORUM

70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« on: June 05, 2013, 05:49:11 AM »

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2013, 06:27:01 AM »
I own the f4 IS version. As I understand it, the IS version is slightly better optically than the non IS version- possibly more to do with corner resolution than centre center resolution but I don't think it's a huge difference, IF you don't need the image stabilisation (I find it very useful personally) or weather sealing you may as well keep the non IS version and put the money elsewhere. YMMV.

Compare the digital picture's sample crops: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=104&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 06:28:40 AM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2013, 06:58:30 AM »
Hi. I have the original 70-200L f/4 and it's great as everyone knows. I have just purchased a 60D for a great price so now I have some extra $$$ for a new L lens.
I see a lot of comparisons between the 70-300L and the 70-200L f/4 IS but not the version that I use.

Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?

I shoot 80% of my pictures over 70mm so the 24-105L has to wait :-)

If there is an IQ difference then the 70-300L is a no brainer for me.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 These three lenses you mentioned are not substantially different from each other. If I were you I'd explore something  else. The 24-105 you mentioned would open up new territories. If not, perhaps try 85 1.8 or 135L? My point is unless you upgrade to 70-200 2.8, you might as well keep what you have now.
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 17-40L, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 85 1.8, 135L, Sigma 35 1.4, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M

CanonMan

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2013, 08:03:54 AM »
Hi. Thanks for the comments. I need the extra reach and at the moment I usually have the 70-200F4 mounted with the 1.4 II extender. Therefore this only leaves one option and that is the 100-400L.
Really unsure what to do. Was going to trade in the 70-200F4 against the 70-300L so that I only had one lens on most of the time. Was hoping for slight better IQ though (don't we all  :) )

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 5062
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2013, 08:37:33 AM »
If not, perhaps try 85 1.8 or 135L? My point is unless you upgrade to 70-200 2.8, you might as well keep what you have now.

-1 - don't underestimate the usefulness of the IS system for these focal lengths esp. for very specialized circumstances like 100% action sports shooting.  Look at your pictures, evaluate for how many you'd have liked a shallower dof (f5.6@300mm is already very shallow esp. when the subject is near) and then think about getting the still somewhat reasonably priced and  versatile 70-300L, even if it cannot match the iq of the 70-200/2.8Lis2 monster.

Jim K

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2013, 08:41:29 AM »
Don't forget that the 100-400 will be a bit heavier than your 70-200 and some folks do not like the "push=pull" zoom.

The 100-400 was my first DSLR lens, along with the 28-135 "kit"lens. Within a month I got a monopod to hold it for longer periods of time, within six months I added the 70-200 f/4L IS (and 10-22) because it was so much easier to carry for longer periods of time and I also use it with the 1.4x but then you miss the 70-98 range. I am still considering the 70-300 L as it would give me both the 70-200 and 98-280 ranges without changing the 1.4x.
EOS: 7D (2, 1 gripped), 50D gripped, 580EX II + CP-E4
EF: 500 f/4L IS, 100-400 L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, 28-135 IS, 1.4x TC II, EF-S: 15-85 IS, 10-22
5D3, 17-40 L, 24-105 L, 24mm TS-E II.  S100 p&s

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2013, 08:46:18 AM »
Hi. Thanks for the comments. I need the extra reach and at the moment I usually have the 70-200F4 mounted with the 1.4 II extender. Therefore this only leaves one option and that is the 100-400L.
Really unsure what to do. Was going to trade in the 70-200F4 against the 70-300L so that I only had one lens on most of the time. Was hoping for slight better IQ though (don't we all  :) )

Broadly speaking I think the 70-300L offers similar resolution to the 70-200 f4 IS so no great difference. The photozone review suggests the 70-300L corner resolution drops further on full frame compared to the 70-200 f4 IS but on a crop camera is as good as the 70-200 f4 IS. What the 70-300 does do is give you 100mm of extra reach in a one lens solution and I've been considering swapping my 70-200 for one for that very reason.
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2013, 08:46:18 AM »

SwampYankee

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2013, 08:53:06 AM »
I have had the same 70-200L f4 non IS for years and never found a reason to upgrade.  I did upgrade to a 5DIII and if it's possible the lens looks sharper on the FF.  It's a great, sharp lens. you could get a faster lens, you could get an IS lens but you will pay significantly for the upgrade and you really don't get much optically.  If the money is burning a hole in your pocket why not look at the 400L 5.6?  With a crop camera you have some real telephoto fire power.  Probably won't be able to hand hold that one though
5DIII | 70-200 IS F4L | 24-105L |50 1.8 I |1002.8L | Tokina 16-28 2.8 |600EX

Eimajm

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2013, 09:04:12 AM »
I have owned the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and its a great lens, super sharp. I use it mainly for plant photography alongside a 100mm macro and mainly at the 200mm end. I have no complaints at all but would really have like a closer focus to stop me switching between the lenses so much. I have just recently upgraded to a 180mm macro for this reasons but am soo attached to the lens its hard to let it go!

JohanCruyff

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2013, 11:05:42 AM »
Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?

Besides IS...
 
According to photozone.de, the blades of the IS version are rounded, unlike the non-IS ones.
If you get close enogh to your subject and the background is far, the bokeh of the IS version is nice (I don't know how the non-IS bokeh is).
Italian amateur. Gear: i) 5d Classic, 17-40 F/4 L, 24-105mm F/4 IS L, 100mm F/2.8 IS L, 70-200 F/4 IS L. & EOS M, 22 F/2, 18-55 + Mount Adapter, 55-250 F/4-5.6 IS STM
ii) Wife: Canon G12
iii) First Daughter: Canon 1100D, 18-55 IS iv) Son: Canon A1000IS v) Second Daughter: Nikon L21

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2013, 11:10:48 AM »
As others said, there is a slight optical advantage of the IS version but the IS is what makes the difference. I shoot concerts with the IS version, no problems. It is the most effective IS of all I tried, an that includes the 100L and the 70-200 II.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1309
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2013, 12:10:37 PM »
The IS version is a newer design, it was released in 2006 whereas the non IS version dates back to 1999! Optically it is better, it has rounded aperture blades and overall build quality is better too. I also think it looks better, especially the switches. The IS version is weather-sealed too.

The IS is rated to 4-stops, and I have managed that and more. You can get shots that would require a tripod or really high ISOs otherwise. (One downside is that the IS motor is NOISY!)

If you shoot with a tripod all the time then all that is almost irrelevant and the non IS version will suffice. For my style of shooting IS makes all the difference.

I often wonder about the 70-300L, and whether I should have bought that. It all depends on individual shooting prefrences. Though, if I need reach I quite simply just plonk it on my 7D and am happy.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 12:15:21 PM by Zv »
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

lholmes549

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2013, 12:29:41 PM »
I have the non IS like you and am very pleased with the image quality, I wouldn't imagine there would be enough of a difference between the IS and non IS to justify the price in image quality alone.
I don't know how good the IS is on the 70-200 but I do sometimes wish I had IS on it like my 24-105mm. Personally I've only ever considered upgrading to the 2.8 but even then I don't really need that extra stop so haven't.

My call, if extra reach is what you want, is the 100-400. That or you could go with a 300 f/4 and use your 1.4 TC with it? Depends how much flexibility you need.
6D, FTb, EOS 500  | 14mm f/2.8,  24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2.8
_____________________________________
500px

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2013, 12:29:41 PM »

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2013, 12:42:22 PM »
Is there a IQ difference between the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/4 IS ?

I was surprised to read Roger at LensRentals say the non-IS is slightly sharper than the IS version. I don't recall where it was or the context, but that stuck with me since I have the non-IS.

My experience with the non-IS version is that it's stunning when I use it, but I rarely use it. I seem to do very little over 70mm (except for my treasured 135) these days, and the 70-200 non-IS requires a lot of light. Without the IS, I end up with too many unusables.

If I were to do a lot of 70-200 shooting, I'd probably go with the IS version.

As for the 70-300, Roger said if he were buying a 70-300, he'd probably go with the much less expensive consumer version.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2013, 01:01:07 PM »
Honestly 300mm with teleconverter on a cropped body is incredibly far and hard to use handheld. The highest usable before introducing ugly noise is 1600iso on the 60d. The maximum aperture for you is 5.6. Maybe you 'll find a good tripod more useful than IS. Are you a bird shooter?
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 17-40L, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 85 1.8, 135L, Sigma 35 1.4, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2013, 01:01:07 PM »