Canon EF70-200mm F/4L non IS or IS

[this_gurl]

Hi, I was browsing the net looking for reviews etc on the canon lens and came across this site. Sorry if this topic has been discussed already, but as I said I am new to here! I have a canon rebel XSI for the body, and just bought the kit lens and one other to start with, but having my camera only 6 months I am already wanting more out of a lens! I do outdoor sports / pets / portraits. I like what I read on the 70-200mm F/4L but unsure if I would need to upgrade in cost to the IS or if I could go with the non IS. Any suggestions would be appreciated, as I said I am mostly outdoors in good lighting, would like to focus on portraits and outdoor sports (horseback riding to be specific)

[clemmb]

Welcome to the forum.


This thread may help you decide. If you go with the non IS, make sure you have a mono-pod or tripod.


Mark

[Sheiky]

Hey there and welcome!

but having my camera only 6 months I am already wanting more out of a lens!

Haha don't buy an L-lens! This will speed up the process of wanting more of them enormously!! [:P]


I've done quite some sports-photography myself with a 70-200 f4L lens. Outdoors it's perfect, indoors it's not useable without a flash. For sports you don't need an IS system.


However for portraits it might be a different story. If you're confident about having enough light to at least have a shutterspeed of 1/200-1/320 so you can handhold the lens at 200mm. Go for the non-IS version! But of course if you don't have enough light, so you'd have to push ISO (not great for portraiture, not a big problem for sports) go for the IS version.


Personally if I needed this lens again I would go for the IS version. At this moment sports isn't my mainobjective anymore and IS could be a very welcome feature.


Also the price difference between both lenses is smaller now as well. It used to be 500 vs 1000 euros, now it's 570 vs 1000 euros which would make my choice harder than it used to be.


Let me make 1 thing clear...the 70-200 f4L is amazing for sports, but perhaps not that great for portraiture. The 70-200 F4L IS doesn't do a better job with sports-photography. However at the price of the 70-200 F4L IS you could also buy a 70-200F4L for sports WITH for instance an 85mm f1.8 for portraiture. That would make your photos even better!


Hope my advice helped a little,


Jan

[this_gurl]

Thanks Jan that is great advice!! And Mark, I do have a tripod however I prefer not to use it, but that may just be a matter of getting used to it.


Jan, you open you a whole new door of possibilities, I read a review that stated this lens was great for portraits! I first bough the camera to do sports / animals (horses, dogs, cats, domestic pets Not wildlife) but I am realizing how much I enjoy taking pictures of People! Defenitly going to keep on researching!

[this_gurl]

Wanted to point out, as I didnt mention in the original post that the other lens I have is theCanon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens (was cheap at the time I bought my camera and just wanted something to play with)

[Sheiky]

I do have a tripod however I prefer not to use it, but that may just be a matter of getting used to it.

I found it very easy to handle the 70-200 f4L at sports without a tripod or monopod. I know some people think differently, but in my eyes it limits your flexibility. And the 70-200 isn't that big so your probably not getting very tired from handholding it.

I read a review that stated this lens was great for portraits!

Don't get me wrong...it is! It's just not an easy lens to use for portraiture. The f4 aperture limits your back/fore-ground differentiation (blur) and although it is possible to get some nice blur. It's not easy. Also the 200mm focal length without IS needs you to have a shutterspeed higher than necessary for portraiture for shooting handheld. This means you'd have bump up your iso at some time, which isn't helping you with portraiture. So to eliminate the shutterspeed "problem" with the lens you could buy the IS version. However it does remain an f4 lens(read: hard to get that desired out of focus blur). Since your camera body isn't weathersealed, the extra weathersealing advantage of the 70-200 f4L IS version isn't used either.


For the extra money for the IS system you could also buy a better lens for portraiture. Think about an 85mm 1.8 which makes a great portrait lens, much better than the 70-200!


So for the money you could get the best of both worlds: 70-200 f4L non IS for sports(and also portraiture with nice weather) and an additional lens for portraiture (which could also be used in low-light and indoor conditions!).


Think about it,


Jan


Edit:



<div>

Wanted to point out, as I didnt mention in the original post that the other lens I have is theCanon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens (was cheap at the time I bought my camera and just wanted something to play with)

<div>That lens should give you an idea of how you can get strong out of focus blur, which is highly desired with most portraits. However, the 50mm 1.8 is not a lens you should have if you're more serious about portraiture. Bokeh isn't pleasing and auto-focus is slow.</div>
<div>What type of portraiture do you prefer to shoot? full body shots? tight shoulder/head portraits?</div>
<div>Oh and what kit-lens do you have?</div>
</div>

[this_gurl]

Jan, I understand what you are saying about not being easy to get the background blur is exactly what I am currently having trouble with! Once again I appreciate the advice and your time to reply! This morning I was just about ready to go ahead and order this lens without the IS online, but you are making me take a moment to think about this!

[Sheiky]

I putt these in an earlier thread before, both shot with 50D and 70-200 F4L:





This is f4 at 100mm. I should notice that there's at least 15m/50 feet of free space behind the subject and the subject is probably close to minimum focus distance





This is at 70mm f4. You'll see that I needed to use 70mm otherwise I had to stand back a lot further. At 200mm this photo would have looked a bit better. Here you see what happens when there isn't a lot of room behind your subject.

[this_gurl]

The camera came with the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens

[this_gurl]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.45.74/34515_5F00_406135856758_5F00_509726758_5F00_490356 1_5F00_5578987_5F00_n.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.45.74/34266_5F00_406602386758_5F00_509726758_5F00_491517 4_5F00_2351213_5F00_n.jpg[/img]





Two of my most recent takes. The top is some from some grad photos I did for a friend,with the kit lens, and this bottom one is a rather shadowy shot of my dog with the 50mm f/1.8 II lens