70-200 f/4 IS VS non IS !!

[fisch_lenko]

Hello, Im new to photography so I need some help. I am currently taking pictures of my kids playing soccer and generic running around with a canon 75-300 / t3i but im not very impressed with the image quality.

Im thinking about buying the canon 70-200 f/4 non-is because I'm on a bit of a budget and also because i've heard great reviews of it. For what i'll be shooting how big of a difference would it be without having IS, and comparing it to the 75-300 is would it still be superior image quality without IS?

Greatly appreciated, Thanks.

[Waddizzle]

Any of Canon's 70-200mm lenses can blow the socks of off a standard 75-300 camera kit lens.  Canon makes 4 versions of the lens, and all are constant aperture lenses, f/4 and f/2.8.  There are versions at each aperture with and without IS.  The versions with IS are weather sealed, while the non-IS versions are not.  Seeing how your camera body is not weather sealed, there is no harm in buying a lens that is not weather sealed, either.

The least expensive 70-200mm is the f/4 non-IS version.  Image Stabilization, in and of itself, while convenient, is not a "must have" feature.  While weather sealing is a nice feature, it should not be a game changer or a deal breaker.  For some people, the lack of weather sealing is a deal breaker, but for the majority of consumers it should not be.  With high shutter speeds, you really do not need IS.  Many pros may turn off IS when they can shoot with sufficiently fast shutter speeds, anyway. 

The first time you use the lens, you will notice dramatically less CA, Chromatic Aberrations.  You will notice a significant improvement in sharpness, as well as contrast.  It will be like night and day.  As long as you keep your shutter speed fast [1/1000 and faster] you should get razor sharp photos.  Soccer is typically played outdoors in the sunshine [bright lighting conditions] so having sufficient light for very fast shutter speeds should not be a problem on most days.

I say go for the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM.  You will be very impressed by it.  If you do not shoot RAW and know how to use Canon's DPP software effectively, then I suggest you learn how.  The single biggest improvement one can make in the quality of their images is using a HIGH quality lens, which any of the 70-200mm "L" series lenses are.  The next biggest improvement one can make in the quality of their images is learning how to use post processing software effectively.

[ScottyP]

C 

Do do note the reciprocal shutter speed rule and remember you must multiply that minimum x 1.6 because you are (I am assuming) a crop sensor camera rather than full frame.

To avoid handheld camera shake blur, the rule states your shutter speed needs to. E at least as fast as the reciprocal of your focal length. So shooting at 200mm your shutter needs to be at least 1/200th on full frame cameras. On crop cameras you multiply by the 1.6x crop factor (200 x 1.6 = 320) and your minimum speed is about 1/320th. 

Shooting a a soccer game outdoors in daylight you are likely already using a lot faster shutter than this so you'd be ok. Using the lens indoors for sports or portraits at 200mm you may find 1/320th a little hard to achieve at f/4 without bumping the ISO up to a point where image quality suffers.  Using less than the full 200mm lowers the minimum shutter speed though. 

[ebiggs1]

"Im thinking about buying the canon 70-200 f/4 non-is because I'm on a bit of a budget ..."

Isn't everybody?  There is a significant difference in the cost of the non-IS f4 lens and the lens I think you should get but not between it and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens,  If you were considering the IS version at all, I would opt for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens (without IS).  The faster aperture always makes a lens more useful.  It is a good idea to go for the fastest lens you can.  IS is a nice feature but isn't as nice as the faster aperture.  IMHO, of course as always.

My rule of thumb is, IS is not necessary and I do not consider it when lens shopping.  However, if two nearly identical lenses, one with out and one with, I would opt for the IS version every time.  And faster aperture 100% of the time.

[TTMartin]

---

@fisch_lenko wrote:

Hello, Im new to photography so I need some help. I am currently taking pictures of my kids playing soccer and generic running around with a canon 75-300 / t3i but im not very impressed with the image quality.

Im thinking about buying the canon 70-200 f/4 non-is because I'm on a bit of a budget and also because i've heard great reviews of it. For what i'll be shooting how big of a difference would it be without having IS, and comparing it to the 75-300 is would it still be superior image quality without IS?

Greatly appreciated, Thanks.

---

You'd  be much better off with the EF-S 55-250 IS STM. 

The image quality is much better than your 75-300, and is on par with the EF 70-200 f/4 at a fraction of the cost.

[Pouncer]

Can anyone tell me if the IS version is white in color or is it still a ‘cream’ color like the non-IS version?

[TCampbell]

This thread was more than a year old ... so it qualifies as a “zombie thread” (once a thread is that old, it’s usually better to just make a new thread).  

The f/4 versions of the EF 70-100 (IS & non-IS) are original (version I) lenses.  White lenses introduced more recently (often version II lenses) tend to be “whiter” than the original “white” lenses.  I think these lenses might be a bit more off-white (ivory) than the current “white” lenses.

The theory behind the white color is that black absorbs more heat than white and use of a long lens during the day may generate more heat ... and that can technically create some expansion and possibly even focus shift.  I personally think lenses are a bit too small to worry about focus shift caused by heat expansion (it’s a very real problem for telescopes but I’ve never seen it in a camera lens).  Canon probably gets more marketing attention from the “white” lenses than anything else.  

In any case, the particular shade of white is less important.  I wouldn’t worry too much about the shade of white (this is one of the least important criteria for lens selection).

[Pouncer]

Thanks very much for the informative reply.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Pouncer wrote:

Can anyone tell me if the IS version is white in color or is it still a ‘cream’ color like the non-IS version?

---

Over the past several years I've bought two copies of the IS II version of the f/2.8, and both were a very light gray, not cream or ivory. Maybe wedding photographers griped about the older colors. I've heard they're finicky about any tint in their equipment, lest it reflect off the bride's dress.

(No, the first lens didn't wear out. It belonged to my employer, and I had to leave it behind when I retired.)

[ebiggs1]

Sony's G line of lens are 'white', too.  Maybe there is something to it.