Advice on 70-200 lens

[DanielW]

Hi everyone!
I currently own a 60D, that I use much more often with the 17-55mm f/2.8, and only sometimes with the 50mm f/1.4. Having my son quickly growing up and beginning to walk, the need for a telephoto lens is becoming clear.
I'm considering buying the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS), for the price looks very good for the image quality I've read about.
My question: would you consider the IS version, even though it will cost almost twice as much? Do you think IS will be worth the price difference?
I don't plan going FF; will probably buy the 7D mk2 instead. Also, the f/2.8 version os the 70-200L will be probably too big for shooting a casual soccer game or so.
Thank you for your help!
Daniel

 

[Loswr]

I find that when shooting people, a minimum shutter speed of 1/60 s at the lowest is needed to freeze the small, involuntary subject movements that can result in blur, and 1/100 s is better. That means for shooting people, IS is not as useful in the 17-55/24-70 region, but it's very useful with a telezoom lens.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS has better IQ than the non-IS version, plus it's weather sealed (might be useful with a 7DII - kids play in the rain!). The other lens to consider would be the 70-300L - similar in cost to the 70-200/4 IS, similarly excellent IQ, longer focal length at the cost of up to 1-stop of aperture, and it's heavier, but shorter when collapsed.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

If you can afford it, go for the IS- version.
You will have a lot higher percentage of keepers.
Ahhh! The sweet pain of choice.

 

[DanielW]

Going for the f/4L IS, then!
(Can't wait for shooting my kid playing in the rain!)
Thank you very much!

 

[Don Haines]

Hi everyone!
I currently own a 60D, that I use much more often with the 17-55mm f/2.8, and only sometimes with the 50mm f/1.4. Having my son quickly growing up and beginning to walk, the need for a telephoto lens is becoming clear.
I'm considering buying the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS), for the price looks very good for the image quality I've read about.
My question: would you consider the IS version, even though it will cost almost twice as much? Do you think IS will be worth the price difference?
I don't plan going FF; will probably buy the 7D mk2 instead. Also, the f/2.8 version os the 70-200L will be probably too big for shooting a casual soccer game or so.
Thank you for your help!
Daniel

Definitely go for the IS version. It is a fantastically sharp lens on a 60D, better IQ than the non-IS version, and about as good as the F2.8IS version. If you are going to be hand-holding the lens at the 200mm end you will get sharper pictures with the IS on...

BTW, this lens focuses very quickly and accurately on the 60D and even works well with a 1.4X teleconverter.

 

[DanielW]

Thank you very much, Don!