# Canon 70-200 f/4 IS



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

Will I be able to capture good freeze-frame action shots (i.e., kids hitting a baseball, kicking a soccer ball, breaking a board, etc.) with the f4 or should I really get the f/2.8? I have a line on a relatively new (7/09) used f4 for $1k which seems like a good deal to me (I really can't afford the f/2.8 IS right now).

I've read the reviews on Fred Miranda, digital picture, etc. and I'm obviously still unsure. If I had the money to get both the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 IS it'd be a no-brainer, but I don't, so now I'm leaning toward the 24-105 and 70-200 f4. 

Thoughts/opinions welcome. Also, if anyone has a link to a comparo of the two 70-200's (2.8 and f4 IS) that'd be great.


----------



## uracowman (Jun 30, 2009)

that lens is alright. If you plan on using this for sports photography and such, IS isn't really needed. IS compensates hand shake, not a moving object.

As far as f2.8 is concerned, ask yourself if you need the extra stop of light. If not, then the f4 may be a decent, cheap telephoto to use. Just as you stated though, the 24-105 F4L IS is a decent carry around lens to have on a full frame but I wouldn't use it on a 1.6x crop. I personally own the lens but I rarely ever use the 105 end of the focal range. Also, I would never consider getting the 70-200 2.8 IS. The lens is a BRICK.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

ok, thanks. I doubt that I'll use a tripod (at least I don't intend to), so hopefully I'll be ok with the 70-200 f4 IS for shooting our boys' activities. I know you hate this, but I think I'm back to the 28-135 along with the 70-200 now on my 1.6x, as I just cant currently justify the (almost) $2k that the 24-105 (or 24-70) and the 70-200 f4 would cost me (the 70-200 and 28-135 can be had for around $1,250, which is more in line with my current finances).

What else should I be looking at for a decent (affordable) carry around on my T1i? My current thought is to get the 70-200 f4 IS, 28-135, and a 50mm f/1.8 and hope that keeps me busy for awhile.


----------



## uracowman (Jun 30, 2009)

hts said:


> ok, thanks. I doubt that I'll use a tripod (at least I don't intend to), so hopefully I'll be ok with the 70-200 f4 IS for shooting our boys' activities. I know you hate this, but I think I'm back to the 28-135 along with the 70-200 now on my 1.6x, as I just cant currently justify the (almost) $2k that the 24-105 (or 24-70) and the 70-200 f4 would cost me (the 70-200 and 28-135 can be had for around $1,250, which is more in line with my current finances).
> 
> What else should I be looking at for a decent (affordable) carry around on my T1i? My current thought is to get the 70-200 f4 IS, 28-135, and a 50mm f/1.8 and hope that keeps me busy for awhile.


the tamron 28-75 or the 17-50 is a great alternative. If you plan on shooting mostly during the day or sunset, the Canon 17-40 F4L on a crop body has a pretty nice focal length.

If I were you, I would pass on IS. The IS system is very heavy and is not really needed unless you plan on shooting in low light conditions.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

I don't understand why you think I wouldn't need the IS on the 70-200 unless I plan to shoot in low light? I thought having IS was *always* preferable to not having it?


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

Why don't you look at a 135 f/2L or a 200 2.8L? 

Either of those will be incredibly sharp, less expensive than the 70-200 f2.8 or f/4 IS, and give you an advantage over the f/4 lenses (especially the 135 side of the 28-135).


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

hts said:


> I don't understand why you think I wouldn't need the IS on the 70-200 unless I plan to shoot in low light? I thought having IS was *always* preferable to not having it?


IS will help when shooting still subjects handheld. Moving subjects don't benefit quite as much, but if you shoot handheld, it will help with camera shake at lower shutter speeds.

I would suggest renting the lenses to see what suits you best - you may find that IS helps you track the subject better - it just comes at a higher cost, and usually the images aren't quite as sharp as the non-IS version - but you would most likely have to be looking at the image at 100% to notice, which isn't something that all people do..


----------



## Skiddy (Apr 12, 2007)

I don't own either lens but I'm also actively researching as much as I can before going for the 70-200 lens. Like you, I'm still undecided and waiting to see if the "update rumors" will become reality

From what I've read (and that's months of work thus far), many opt for the 70-200 f.4L IS over the f2.8 because it's sharper at f/4 and has the better IS of the two. This may contribute to the rumors that Canon will be bringing out an updated 70-200 f2.8 IS "Mark II". I don't know if this will happen or when it will happen but it suggests that there may be room for small improvement over what is already a fantastic lens. Go search "Canon Rumors" and "Photography on the net" rumors section for more detailed ramblings!

As others have commented, if you forego the extra f-stop, the f4 lens is still a very good option and much less $$$ than f2.8. I would also agree that the f2.8 does weigh about the same as 135'vert 

IS versus non-IS. It will depend on your specific shooting needs if you feel you need it. 

Just my $0.05


----------



## uracowman (Jun 30, 2009)

hts said:


> I don't understand why you think I wouldn't need the IS on the 70-200 unless I plan to shoot in low light? I thought having IS was *always* preferable to not having it?


As I said before.....if you plan on shooting sports, IS doesn't matter at any shutter speed.


335i said:


> Why don't you look at a 135 f/2L or a 200 2.8L?
> 
> Either of those will be incredibly sharp, less expensive than the 70-200 f2.8 or f/4 IS, and give you an advantage over the f/4 lenses (especially the 135 side of the 28-135).


He shoots a T1i, a 1.6x crop camera. Getting those two lenses would be brutal for what he is trying to shoot, especially at the zoom lengths those will factor to. If he plans to shoot his children's sports events with a prime, what is he going to do? Stand up, sprint back 50 yards to get his subject and take a pic?


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

So I'm a little confused. I do mostly shoot sports (our boys playing soccer, baseball, TKD, etc.). Most (except TKD) are outdoors in decent light. I think the 70-200 f4 is the way to go, but pls help me understand why IS is of little value to me (because I'm not shooting in low light)?

Now I'm considering selling my 75-300 IS (the only lens I currently have since I ditched both my 18-55 and 50 1.4 last week) and replacing it with the 70-200 f4 and 50mm 1.8 II (I do a fair amount of close-in portraits with the boys). Can I get by with just these two or do I need some sort of zoom to bridge the gap (I've decided again now that if I do, it'll be the 28-135) based on a number of reviews, not of least of which were these two:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/24-105/index.htm

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm

This report briefly reviews and compares the performance of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens against two other excellent performing Canon zoom lenses: 1) EF 24-70mm f/2.8L; and 2) EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. All three lenses performed remarkably well with only relatively small differences in performance being detected in the tests. All three lenses offer excellent sharpness and contrast across their aperture and focal length ranges and resistance to flare. Differences were noted in linear distortion, vignetting, out of focus highlights, resolution at f/8 and lateral chromatic aberration. The two expensive L-zoom lenses predictably outperformed the consumer quality EF 28-135mm lens on many tests. However, the differences in image quality that end up being visible in a print are surprisingly small.


----------



## uracowman (Jun 30, 2009)

hts said:


> So I'm a little confused. I do mostly shoot sports (our boys playing soccer, baseball, TKD, etc.). Most (except TKD) are outdoors in decent light. I think the 70-200 f4 is the way to go, but pls help me understand why IS is of little value to me (because I'm not shooting in low light)?
> 
> Now I'm considering selling my 75-300 IS (the only lens I currently have since I ditched both my 18-55 and 50 1.4 last week) and replacing it with the 70-200 f4 and 50mm 1.8 II (I do a fair amount of close-in portraits with the boys). Can I get by with just these two or do I need some sort of zoom to bridge the gap (I've decided again now that if I do, it'll be the 28-135) based on a number of reviews, not of least of which were these two:
> 
> ...


The only thing IS does is it compensates for slow shutter speeds. This is only for user shake, not movement of the target you are trying to shoot. Straightening out a moving subject is defying physics of how light works. IS helps you by compensating by two f-stops, meaning you can shoot by two f-stops slower and achieve the "same" image as far as aperture and shutter are concerned.

There are two ways you can counteract a slow shutter speed at low light. These are aperture and iso. Iso should always be the last thing you chance, which is why large aperture lenses are so expensive. If you are planning to get a 70-200 F4 IS, you might as well get the 70-200 F2.8 non is. Sports are hard to shoot to begin with, as I assume you plan on shooting at night? This is why Canon 1D series cameras are so expensive because you can shoot at iso 1600 and it looks like it is iso 100 on canon's lower end lenses.

I am going to go ahead and tell you that even if you use an f2.8 lens, you will have to use atleast iso 800 if you plan on shooting a night event.

Lastly in regard to the lens tests, everything you said is true but another big thing is build quality. Those L grade lenses are near bulletproof and waterproof. If you were to ever get a 5D or 1D series camera and you put on a L grade lens, you can literally shoot in th rain or underwater while scuba diving with no worries to your equipment.


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

uracowman said:


> As I said before.....if you plan on shooting sports, IS doesn't matter at any shutter speed.
> 
> He shoots a T1i, a 1.6x crop camera. Getting those two lenses would be brutal for what he is trying to shoot, especially at the zoom lengths those will factor to. If he plans to shoot his children's sports events with a prime, what is he going to do? Stand up, sprint back 50 yards to get his subject and take a pic?


I'm confused.. both of those lenses are within the 70-200 range that he's looking at..

IS may help considerably while trying to track/autofocus on a subject. It may not improve the image quality directly by decreasing blur, but it may help you get the shot.

As I suggested, go USE one of the lenses. Looking at these lenses through pictures and reading pointless articles comparing test charts won't give you a feel for how you'll use the lens.

If you like the IS in your 75-300, chances are, you'll probably want it in a 70-200.

Good luck :thumbup:


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

uracowman said:


> The only thing IS does is it compensates for slow shutter speeds. This is only for user shake, not movement of the target you are trying to shoot.


I have to disagree. Keeping the image stable in the viewfinder and panning are two very useful features, especially at the long end of the lens. AF accuracy may improve if you are experiencing camera shake.



uracowman said:


> Straightening out a moving subject is defying physics of how light works. IS helps you by compensating by two f-stops, meaning you can shoot by two f-stops slower and achieve the "same" image as far as aperture and shutter are concerned.


Canon claims up to 4 stops, per their literature.



uracowman said:


> There are two ways you can counteract a slow shutter speed at low light. These are aperture and iso. Iso should always be the last thing you chance, which is why large aperture lenses are so expensive. If you are planning to get a 70-200 F4 IS, you might as well get the 70-200 F2.8 non is. Sports are hard to shoot to begin with, as I assume you plan on shooting at night? This is why Canon 1D series cameras are so expensive because you can shoot at iso 1600 and it looks like it is iso 100 on canon's lower end lenses.


I seem to recall the OP said most would be in good light, but a 1D/iso 1600 looking like iso 100 is a stretch. A HUGE one. Contrary to your opinion, crappy glass will be much more noticeable when captured through a better sensor, especially a FF sensor. And good glass doesn't "enhance" the iso of a camera - The two are independent of one another. A camera may have better performance at high a higher ISO (less noise), but it won't be the result of a lower end canon lens. 


uracowman said:


> I am going to go ahead and tell you that even if you use an f2.8 lens, you will have to use atleast iso 800 if you plan on shooting a night event.


I would suggest taking a peek at your light meter before you just set an iso.. You may find that at a brightly lit stadium if you are sitting closer, you don't quite need 800, especially with a shorter lens.



uracowman said:


> Lastly in regard to the lens tests, everything you said is true but another big thing is build quality. Those L grade lenses are near bulletproof and waterproof. If you were to ever get a 5D or 1D series camera and you put on a L grade lens, you can literally shoot in th rain or underwater while scuba diving with no worries to your equipment.


L lenses, while very durable, are not all weather sealed. I much prefer the build quility of L lenses, but you can't take them scuba diving without a very expensive underwater housing, which typically costs more than a prosumer camera and lens combined. Taking it underwater without a watertight housing... well, I would highly suggest consulting an owners manual.


----------



## jcatral14 (Aug 4, 2003)

Get non IS 70-200/2.8 + mono pod. Problem solved


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

What a ruminator that hts is...


----------

