What do you think of this lens?
- Thread starter Reactor
- Start date
Don't bother. Go 2.8 non IS for about the same price and weight. I can't really see too many benefits in getting the F4 with IS that you cannot gain by just going to the larger aperture lens. It is claimed 4 stops, but i would be surprised if it gets anywhere near that. My IS lenses usually get at most 2 stops of acceptable use. Remember, it will only help you when shooting slow shutter speeds in low light with still objects. It will not help at all with moving objects (won't freeze motion..you still need a high shutter speed here). It will not work the other way.
"4 step Image Stabilizer (IS) extends low light options to previously unimaginable levels. Photographers normally shooting handheld at 1/250 sec can switch on IS to obtain a similarly steady and blur-free result with a shutter speed of just 1/15 second."
You cannot go from a shot that needs 1/15 to 1/250 magically with IS.
The regular F4 is a fantastic lens, lightweight etc.
"4 step Image Stabilizer (IS) extends low light options to previously unimaginable levels. Photographers normally shooting handheld at 1/250 sec can switch on IS to obtain a similarly steady and blur-free result with a shutter speed of just 1/15 second."
You cannot go from a shot that needs 1/15 to 1/250 magically with IS.
The regular F4 is a fantastic lens, lightweight etc.
the f/2.8 lens weights almost a pound more than the f/4 IS lens.
i've never used IS, so i can't comment on how well it works.
i do own the regular f/4 version, and the color, contrast, AF performance and bokeh are really great. for what i use it for, i couldn't see myself needing the extra stop much, and certainly not for close to twice the price.
fraser, even if the IS only gave two stops performance, it would still be a faster lens (on stationary subjects) than the 2.8 lens, at much lower weight penalty.
i've never used IS, so i can't comment on how well it works.
i do own the regular f/4 version, and the color, contrast, AF performance and bokeh are really great. for what i use it for, i couldn't see myself needing the extra stop much, and certainly not for close to twice the price.
fraser, even if the IS only gave two stops performance, it would still be a faster lens (on stationary subjects) than the 2.8 lens, at much lower weight penalty.
As I understand it, this is basically the third generation(or second and a half) of IS from canon. The first generation was 2 stops but didn't pan well. The second generation was three stops and had two modes horizontal and vertical or vertical. This new lens has four stops worth of IS and two modes of IS, and automatic tripod detection. I want to be able to use the lens by hand, and with a monopod without a huge penalty in blurryness. It's the same price as the f2.8 and everyone has given it rave reviews. Still I'm the F4L is a great lense, and the f2.8L is outstanding (but heavy)
Your confusing Image Stabilization with aperture. If a shot requires 1/15 @ f/4 it will be 1/30 @ f/2.8, IS make the lens more stable, not faster. With IS you will get an image at 1/15 that has the same amount of camera shake induced blur as the same shot would have at 1/250, in therory anyway.
I have both the f/4 non IS and f/2.8 IS and IQ is nearly the same at f/4 and above, the f/4 is really light, but does not focus as fast. The f2.8 is amazing in low light, and focuses instantly. I too would opt for the 2.8 non IS over the 4 IS, or better yet, wait a while longer, save a little more cash and get the f/2.8 IS.
when i was talking IS and stops, i was merely parroting the canon party line; i know the difference between shake control and aperture (IS isn't magically gonna change yr depth of field, but it will act like a tripod in that hand-holding at slow shutters is achievable).
sure the 2.8 IS lens is surely a cracker, but a little more cash? you canon pros are funny. the non IS version is about $1100...the IS version is about $1700....that's a pretty substantial cost difference; you could get a pretty great additional lens for $600 (canon 10-22; canon 17-40, both the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8, etc).
Trust me, these are only canon claims. I have 3rd generation IS lenses, it isn't what they claim. Go with the faster lens, not the "band aid" lens.
As for Narlus' claim, the IS doesn't make anything faster, it helps if you have shakey hands - so their amount of stops claim is simply nonsense. Someone with more stable hands than you or I will see less of an improvement than we would. For what it's worth, I switch IS off on my IS lenses 99% of the time (which is why i picked up the 2.8 non IS version of the lens). Now you just have a heavier, slower lens that cost you more money and focuses slower.
The faster lens is still the 2.8, every day of the week. As Max said, it also focuses faster than the F4.
Well the way I figure it, if 70-200 is what he really wants, then no sense compromising in order to get it a little sooner/cheaper, even if the 70-200 IS is 50% more money. I always chuckle when I hear a hobbiest photog bitching about not being able to afford gear, it's not like they'll be missing out on income if they don't get it in time, and they don't have to worry about earning enough money with the lens to make it worth while, it's your hobby and if it's something that makes you happy, I say go for it. I certainly don't have any reason to own any of my bikes, I'm slow as hell and a WalMart bike would probably work, but I really wanted top end bikes so I waited a little longer, saved-up a little more cash and bough what I really really wanted, no compromises.
I like to take shots without a tripod, at most I'll use the canon monopod I just purchased (it's nice btw). All of which make lighter lens is attractive. I've also got a fair amount of hand shake, especially since my accident. Which makes the IS feature attractive.
Any lens I get will be better than the kit lens I have right now. I can get the IS f4L for a little over a thousand, The IS 2.8L is almost $1700. I've also considered getting the F4L without the IS, which would be about $600 or the f2.8L which would be about the same cost as the IS f4L
Any lens I get will be better than the kit lens I have right now. I can get the IS f4L for a little over a thousand, The IS 2.8L is almost $1700. I've also considered getting the F4L without the IS, which would be about $600 or the f2.8L which would be about the same cost as the IS f4L
My choice would be the 2.8 non IS. It practically lives on my Mk2. If you have tons of handshake however, maybe the F4 will fit the bill better for you. It is all about the tools YOU need to get the job done. Just remember it won't hlp if your subjects are moving, as you will need a high shutter speed anyways and above 1/100th or so, IS won't help much.
Not sure what you are taking pics of or what flexibility you need, but remember you can also get some other great primes for low light at low cost. 85mm 1.8 etc for around $340 and the 100mm 2.0 for around $390.