IS or NON IS - CANON 70-200 f/4

[FIRDIE]

Hi all ,i'm intending to get the canon 70-200 f/4 lens but i'm deciding to get the IS or NON-IS one .

Will it make a big difference if i'm taking fast moving action like a soccer match or F1 cars or general photography ?Is worth investing in that lens with IS ?Is it worth the price ..?

And lastly some comments on the lens OTHER THAT ITS HEAVY AND EXPENSIVE !

Thanks all for your time

[Teegongkia]

If u r going to take some fast moving action photos, getting a lens with bigger aperture like the F2.8 will help more.

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by FIRDIE Hi all ,i'm intending to get the canon 70-200 f/4 lens but i'm deciding to get the IS or NON-IS one . Will it make a big difference if i'm taking fast moving action like a soccer match or F1 cars or general photography ?Is worth investing in that lens with IS ?Is it worth the price ..? And lastly some comments on the lens OTHER THAT ITS HEAVY AND EXPENSIVE ! Thanks all for your time

i thought its pretty light and value for $$$. its less than 1kg right?

[yipxh]

IS for sure

[axelris]

Definitely IS

[estel]

Originally Posted by FIRDIE Will it make a big difference if i'm taking fast moving action like a soccer match or F1 cars or general photography ?

Originally Posted by axelris Definitely IS

Originally Posted by yipxh IS for sure

did you care to read the question before answering?

TS, IS is almost useless if you want to stop the motion of the *subject*. IS can only stop your own camera shake. What you need to stop subject motion is a higher shutter speed, which means larger apeture (in the lens) or higher ISO (in the camera). If your shutter speed is fast enough to stop F1 motion, your pictures won't likely be affected much by camera shaking anyway.

IS unit doesn't add a lot to weight. Difference is minimal you won't even notice. However, f/2.8 version is much heavier than f/4 version, but it will help you shoot at shutter speeds twice as fast.

[stanycjw]

Originally Posted by FIRDIE Hi all ,i'm intending to get the canon 70-200 f/4 lens but i'm deciding to get the IS or NON-IS one . Will it make a big difference if i'm taking fast moving action like a soccer match or F1 cars or general photography ?Is worth investing in that lens with IS ?Is it worth the price ..? And lastly some comments on the lens OTHER THAT ITS HEAVY AND EXPENSIVE ! Thanks all for your time

Suggest to get IS, it.s a must if like F1. reduce burr and able to stop dn by 2 stop.
I sold my 70-300 w/o IS and replaced w IS.

Really worth to pay a sight higher $$$.

[estel]

Originally Posted by stanycjw Suggest to get IS, it.s a must if like F1. reduce burr and able to stop dn by 2 stop.

Could you please explain how stopping down two stops (= four times slower shutter speed) can help stop blur of fast moving cars?

[singlesnipershot]

Originally Posted by estel Could you please explain how stopping down two stops (= four times slower shutter speed) can help stop blur of fast moving cars?

Estel is right....IS is for shaky hands laa..not fast cars :-p

[FIRDIE]

Does anyone know why this lens for canon is so much more ex than for nikon ?I saw one guy sellign 70-200 f/2.8 VR 2touch for $800 plus i think .Now this for canon is 3k plus BN ..why sia ?

[fredlens]

why is everyone talking about the 70-200 but not the 100-400 L Lens???
i thought its coverage is better?

[Trapper]

TS also asked about "general" photography. Since he didn't say what he meant by that, recommending the IS version is par for the course. If you're only shooting F1, IS does not matter; if you're getting the lens for F1 alone though, why buy at all, just rent.

[Trapper]

Originally Posted by fredlens why is everyone talking about the 70-200 but not the 100-400 L Lens??? i thought its coverage is better?

Focal length is not, and should not, be the only criteria to choosing your lenses.

[Snapperholic]

Although the IS won't stop motion,
I support "IS" if your budget permits.

Reason:
At 200mm, any motion detected from our wobbly hands will be greatly amplified... (as compared to the EFS 17-55 IS USM) Having the "IS" greatly increases the hand holdability of the lens at its long end.

Further more, at dimmer situation, the "IS" allows you to have longer exposures hand held. This is compensates for the smaller aperure as compared to the 70-200 F2.8 variants although still not to its equivalent.

Lastly, the weight increment between the IS and non IS variants are neligible. The thing to consider more is the budget you are willing to spend. If budget allows, "IS" is definitely the way to go.

Just my two cents~

[Snapperholic]

Oh btw,

Your F1 cars at shot in the night?

Under normal lighting conditions, the F4 variant should do fine (though i haven tried shooting F1). If not, what body you are using? Try bumping up of ISO is another cheap alternative to buying the f2.8 variant. (this option is even more apprarent with the new 5DmkII which is uber godly in its ISO control.
)

[frankchn]

One more vote for IS here. IS really helps if you are going to use the lens as a more general purpose lens. If you are only intent on shooting F1 cars or such at night, you should just rent a 300/2.8 or something =p

[electrobeat]

That's because L comes with a different price tag altogether...

[diver-hloc]

IS.......

[cg171s]

For your purpose, I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is more suitable.

But, between the f/4.. get the IS version.. You won't regret it.

[WINDyx]

As long it's telephoto , definitely IS for me...
My hands are not that steady enough for shots at 200mm.