canon 70-200 f4L IS or non-IS

[JDShadowKing]

im considering getting a 70-200 f4L as an upgrade from the kit lens. should i get the f4L non-IS for abt $860 or the 70-200 f4L IS for abt $1600. is the IS really worth twice the price? i wont need the weather sealing as my body isnt weather sealed either. I mainly shoot portraits and events so is the cost of twice the price worth to get the IS? any advice?

 

[SNAPDINER]

If you are willing to shell up $1800 or more, you could buy a 2nd hand 70-200 f2.8 II with IS...one of Canon's sharpest lens.
Unless you use 200mm with tripod most times, IS will not be important.

 

[daredevil123]

IS is worth its weight in gold, especially with a tele lens.
I would say save a little more and get the 2.8 IS II. or buy a pre-owned one.

 

[Ah Keong]

for your usage (portraits / events), I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II would be a better fit.
if budget is an issue, you may want to get a second hand / rent or get the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Cheers!

 

[SkyStrike]

If you are covering indoor events, having the f/2.8 will be better (preferably with IS) as you may not want to bump your ISO too high.


if you are just covering outdoor events/portraits in good light, I'll still recommend the IS version if you can afford it. Else the non-IS version is equally good optically.

 

[JDShadowKing]

thanks for the prompt reply guys but im kinda on a budget so i think ill go for a second hand f4 IS

 

[Kumarjo]

Longer lens you definately need to have IS... its a big plus