IS or not?

[Parsen66]

I'm itching to change my 70-200 F4 L lens to the F2.8 version. My dilemma is do I spend out the extra for IS? The main attraction is of course it being very fast and good in lower light so why would it need to have IS?

Can you chaps who hopefully own or owned both will be able to make a case either way? Rather than read reviews I thought I'd ask my chums. So, over to you and thanks.

PS. If anyone has pt ex'd the F4 version in good condition, what's it worth, £400?

[Stan]

Re: IS or not?

Dee used to have the 70-200 f4 non IS and whilst it was good, she upgraded to the IS version and found a world of difference for slower shutter speeds. When I was considering getting a 70-200 f2.8 a few years ago, the advise I was given was always to go for the IS version

Stan

[rajjayaraj]

Re: IS or not?

Dee used to have the 70-200 f4 non IS and whilst it was good, she upgraded to the IS version and found a world of difference for slower shutter speeds.

Stan

I totally agree, as i have owned the non IS before and now f2.8 IS. I also found out the Mark II is significantly better than Mark I in IQ.

Now i need to find the money to upgrade my non IS 300mm f2.8.........

[Tigger]

Re: IS or not?

Dee used to have the 70-200 f4 non IS and whilst it was good, she upgraded to the IS version and found a world of difference for slower shutter speeds. When I was considering getting a 70-200 f2.8 a few years ago, the advise I was given was always to go for the IS version

Stan

agree - I've never owned both but one thing that does amaze me about the 2.8 is the low speeds I can get with no loss of image quality due to the IS...but its a trade off as its a weight against the f4

[Fr1so]

Re: IS or not?

If you have the money for the IS version, just do it.

[Tigger]

Re: IS or not?

If you have the money for the IS version, just do it.

you have to remember Friso its not HIS money, but the wife. By us all saying the lens to buy he can tell his wife we all told him that, its our fault he's having to spend more

[Nathaniel]

Re: IS or not?

I have the 70-200mm f4 L non IS lens and I have not found any need for IS. I use this lens mostly for BIF shots and with a fast shutter speed it is possible to hand hold the lens without any difficulty. I have also used this lens to take photographs of artists on stage and once again have not found any problems. I find the weight of the IS versions of this lens( F4 and F2.8) a bit too heavy for me. Having stated that each one has to decide what is best for them. I might also add that I also use the Canon 24-105 and 55-250mm lenses which have got IS but these are OK weight wise for me but even here I use a fast shutter speed, perhaps by force of habit!!!

[collywobbles]

Re: IS or not?

I up graded from f/4.0 non is to f/2.8 NON IS. I went for non is because of weight issue and cost . If you can afford it and don't mind the weight, go for IS version.

[digiman]

Re: IS or not?

If you can afford it and don't mind the weight, go for IS version.

Just exactly what I was going to say!

[Tigger]

Re: IS or not?

P.S. I don't think you'
ll get £400 trsde in for your f/4.0 non IS as you can purchase a new one for around that price.

still could be worthwhile trying ebay - I'm amazed at some of the prices things get posted and bidded for, true it could be fake bids

[collywobbles]

Re: IS or not?

P.S I don't think you'll get £400 trade-in for your f/4.0 non IS as you can purchase a new one for around that price.

[@imagesBV]

Re: IS or not?

P.S I don't think you'll get £400 trade-in for your f/4.0 non IS as you can purchase a new one for around that price.

I noticed in Wex yesterday that have a few at around £300 for non IS.....I'd hazard that you would get approx £250-£300....I should be on antiques roadshow!

[collywobbles]

Re: IS or not?

Just found these prices: 70-200 f/4.0 non IS £367, F/2.8 NON IS, £734, IS version £1180.
Ya pays ya money, ya make ya choice!

[collywobbles]

Re: IS or not?

I think Brian's about right there.

[paul linton]

Re: IS or not?

I'm not sure the extra for IS is worth it but if money is no object then go for it.

IS is on most of my lenses but it's only on the 400mm that i can see it actually working (when shooting the moon the image looks is a bit wobbly but turning on the IS the image becomes rock steady)

Paul