Canon 70-200mm advice please

[Ana Vanessa]

Hello,

I do hope I get a reply this time, because the first (and last) time I posted a question here, no one answered

Anyway, I have a 7D and a 450D and am looking for a decent telephoto, not superzoom, not too heavy. I'm keen on the Canon 70-300mm f4 but my question is, is it worth paying the extra (almost double in some places) cash for the IS? I mainly shoot wildlife, weddings and street.

Would welcome any advice!!!

Thank you,
Ana

[chris-p]

Hi Ana

I presume you mean the 70-200mm f/4 (you wrote 70-300). It's really difficult to say whether it's worth the extra for the IS model or not. I should say that I don't use Canon (and I couldn't afford them if I did) so I've no directe experience with these lenses.

Personally, I'm not sure about the IS. It makes a big difference to the price and the f/4 aperture should allow for enough light to keep your shutter speeds high. Coupled with the very good high ISO performance of your 7D, I would imagine that you wouldn't struggle without IS (most of the time anyway).
Having said that, I like IS in lenses. I like to be able to see it working through the viewfinder and it can be a very useful thing.

If it was me, I'd buy the one I could afford. If I could afford the IS model, I'd probably buy that one. This probably doesn't help - you wouldn't be considering both if you could only afford one of them!

[chris-p]

Oh, one other thing...

Have you considered renting the non-IS version for a day or two. That way you could use it and see if you struggle without the IS. Or rent the IS one for 2 days and spend a day with the IS switched off...

[cosmicma]

or you could have a look at the 2.8 non is version ( similar price to the f4 IS if you can find one )

for wildlife 200mm isn't really long enough a 1.4x teleconverter would make some difference

i have a 70 - 200mm F4 L non is and it's a very good lens and coupled with the canon 1.4x teleconverter it's still pin sharp

i think the is version is a lot of money for basicly the same lens my thoughts would be towards a f2.8 non is version if i was spending that kind of money

[digoer]

I am a owner of the 70-200 f4 L. Great lens even hand held and affordable. I have owned 2. I had the 2.8 version but could not hand hold it. (very heavy). On my 7d, it seems like a match made in heaven. I do landscaping, birdwatching, and macro/closeups with my lens. I hope this is the info you were looking for.

[Ana Vanessa]

Dear everybody,

Thank you for your replies, Chris, I agree with going with what you can afford! It is to replace a Sigma 70-300 I bought 2 years ago which was all I could afford at the time but has never been very impressive.
Cosmicma, the 2.8 is a fantastic lens but just too heavy and bulky for me, it's the 'manageability' of the f4 that I like so much. I hadn't thought of using a teleconverter so thank you for that, and Digoer - I think you have sold it to me! I love a match made in heaven!

Thank you again,

Ana

[Chris George]

Some great comments here. I prefer a f/2.8 version - as the blurred backgrounds are important in some many types of photography. However, they are heavy - whatever brand you buy. I would certainly recommend getting IS, whatever the model. This is certainly worth the investment...

The idea of hiring one or two of the lenses and seeing for yourself is an excellent ones. Hire services are much more affordable and mean much less paperwork than they used to be

Chris