07-11-2010, 12:36 AM
I have owned both, and for a while simultaneously, just to make sure it was as good as promised.
Rendering is about the same, maybe the IS version is slightly busier in the background; IOW, I reckon bokeh with the non-IS version is slightly better. Close (actually very close) to MFD the non-IS version is a little sharper, especially at the long end. The IS on the IS version is phenomenal. I could handhold it without any problems down to 1/16s and occasionally even slower speeds, at 200 mm on APS-C - that's 4 1/3 stops of IS and sometimes more, and without IS I do need 1/320s or faster.... The IS version at (short) middle to long distance is definitely sharper than the non-IS version.
When used for macro purposes, e.g., with extension tubes, the non-IS version performs better from my experience. Shots with the IS version lacked a bit of bite, if you'd ask me. I know it isn't a macro lens, but I'll use any lens for (semi)macro work, as that is something I like doing <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I guess this is in a way an extension of it getting just a tad softer at MFD in the long reaches.
I used the 70-200 a lot in the past, for anything from portraits to sports to landscapes, etc. Both versions are great for this, but the IS version wins because of the IS. I've done a lot of indoors shooting with the IS version, handheld, often candid portraits, which I could not have done with the non-IS version - I always needed a flash in that case.
I said in the past, because I have moved to an almost prime only set-up these days, which I find more satisfying than using zooms, especially as I used my zooms as varifocal primes anyway, IOW, a prime with framing options. I sold the non-IS about a year after obtaining the IS version, and the IS version I sold a few months after obtaining the 135L. I already had an extender 1.4X, and the combo, 135L either with or without extender, I preferred (and prefer) over the zoom. Furthermore, the 135L is great close to MFD, and coupled to a few extension tubes, it still is. IMO, it even beats the 100 macro <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Would I recommend the 70-200 F/4 IS? Yes, wholeheartedly. Great lens, and worth the money. However, that is also true for the non-IS version. Which one you should get is essentially a budget thing, and the requirement for IS. To me, that would be a non-issue, I'd go for the IS one, as I did in the end <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Anyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim
Rendering is about the same, maybe the IS version is slightly busier in the background; IOW, I reckon bokeh with the non-IS version is slightly better. Close (actually very close) to MFD the non-IS version is a little sharper, especially at the long end. The IS on the IS version is phenomenal. I could handhold it without any problems down to 1/16s and occasionally even slower speeds, at 200 mm on APS-C - that's 4 1/3 stops of IS and sometimes more, and without IS I do need 1/320s or faster.... The IS version at (short) middle to long distance is definitely sharper than the non-IS version.
When used for macro purposes, e.g., with extension tubes, the non-IS version performs better from my experience. Shots with the IS version lacked a bit of bite, if you'd ask me. I know it isn't a macro lens, but I'll use any lens for (semi)macro work, as that is something I like doing <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I guess this is in a way an extension of it getting just a tad softer at MFD in the long reaches.I used the 70-200 a lot in the past, for anything from portraits to sports to landscapes, etc. Both versions are great for this, but the IS version wins because of the IS. I've done a lot of indoors shooting with the IS version, handheld, often candid portraits, which I could not have done with the non-IS version - I always needed a flash in that case.
I said in the past, because I have moved to an almost prime only set-up these days, which I find more satisfying than using zooms, especially as I used my zooms as varifocal primes anyway, IOW, a prime with framing options. I sold the non-IS about a year after obtaining the IS version, and the IS version I sold a few months after obtaining the 135L. I already had an extender 1.4X, and the combo, 135L either with or without extender, I preferred (and prefer) over the zoom. Furthermore, the 135L is great close to MFD, and coupled to a few extension tubes, it still is. IMO, it even beats the 100 macro <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Would I recommend the 70-200 F/4 IS? Yes, wholeheartedly. Great lens, and worth the money. However, that is also true for the non-IS version. Which one you should get is essentially a budget thing, and the requirement for IS. To me, that would be a non-issue, I'd go for the IS one, as I did in the end <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Anyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....