70-200 f/4 L IS USM

[D.Sim]

I have the F4 IS and it is a wonderful lens. I bought it for the weight difference over the 2.8 IS. Now that the 2.8 Mk.II is out and has rave reviews I am re-thinking that decision, although I am using my 85/1.8 and 135L more now that I have the 5D3, whereas before they got less play on the 40D.

FWIW, I shoot the f/4 IS as well... and having also shot the 2.8 IS II, I'm regretting not getting that one instead.

Not to say that the f/4 isn't great, I love it. Its a fantastic lens.

Its just that the knowledge that theres the 2.8 IS II......

 

[daniemare]

I have a 500D and the non-IS was my first L lens. (And as many will confess, not my last)

I was also debating IS vs. non-IS. I am purely a hobbyist so price was a factor.

Here was my thought process.
- On a crop body, 70-200 will be an unlikely choice for indoor use (where the IS makes up a bit for the F4).
- I wanted the zoom for oudoor use, specifically child sport - where high shutterspeeds are called for in any case
- Being Canon's cheapest L lens, there are many options on Kijiji/Craigslit/e-Bay.

So I decided to get the non-IS as I a managed a deal on Kijiji for a very good copy for $400. That plus my $800 100 F2.8L macro set me back less than what the IS version is - even used in Canada. You will be surprised what people will take even if they are "firm" on their prices.

 

[Jamesy]

- On a crop body, 70-200 will be an unlikely choice for indoor use (where the IS makes up a bit for the F4).

I agree, the 70-200 has only ever been used outdoors at events and the like for me on a crop body. That may change this year with the new FF though, time will tell.