# Canon 70-200mm USM vs IS USM Version?



## JamieR (May 24, 2009)

I'm really interested in buying this lens and i would like to know why it is nearly double the price for the IS version?

Surely Image Stablisation isn't that much of a big deal to make a lens twice as expensive?

I would like to hear other peoples views on this please.


----------



## Jaszek (May 24, 2009)

which version are you talking about, the f/4 or the f/2.8?


----------



## JamieR (May 24, 2009)

The f/4, but the price is almost double on both. Is there a really good reason why it's twice? IS doesn't seem that big a deal to me, but I'm not sure how camera shake will be at 200mm.


----------



## Jaszek (May 24, 2009)

you just answered your own question basically. Camera shake will be a lot when you are shooting at 200mm unless you have very very steady hands. Imagine you are shooting a wedding and they just put the lights down while the guests are dancing. Even at f/2.8 the highest shutter speed you can shoot with is 1/60th of a second to freeze action but have it exposed right. w/o IS there will be camera shake visible. I tried it once since I work at a Catering Hall. Came up to a photographer that had the 70-200 IS f/2,5, first I took a picture with IS on and then I turned it off. I clearly saw the difference IS makes, which is why I went with the IS version. Also if you are planning to buy it  look around for used ones. I got mine for 1475 when the new one is about 1800 with tax


----------



## RyanLilly (May 24, 2009)

It really depends on what you shoot. I have a non is f/4, and pretty much need to shoot at 1/200 to avoid camera shake, on some occasions I have shot a bit slower( at shorter focal lengths I can shoot at much slower then the "1/focal length" rule) but, If I'm the least bit tired or have recently had a few cups of coffee(probably because I was tired), I need to shoot at 1/200, so sometimes this means shooting a pretty high ISO in order to avoid camera shake. So, my next big purchase will be a 70-200 2.8 IS. I have used this lens and the IS works pretty freaken good.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (May 24, 2009)

The old rule of thumb is that your exposure time (in seconds) should be at least as fast as 1 / (focal length x FOVCF).  The field of view crop factor (FOVCF) for the consumer and prosumer Canon cameras is 1.6x.  Therefore, you should probably try for a 1/320s or faster exposure at 200mm.

With a solid prop, image stabilization or a tripod, you can shoot longer exposures without blurring.


----------



## RyanLilly (May 24, 2009)

Right, that it the rule of thumb to which I was referring, and you are right that crop should be taken into account as a general guideline. I seem to have exceptionally stable hands, but considering the fov crop into the equation, is even more reason to want IS. If money is a limiting factor though, a good monopod goes a long way for camera stability while not limiting your mobility like a tripod.


----------



## wgp1987 (May 24, 2009)

With a solid prop said:
			
		

> yep, i have a 55-250 IS and without a stabilizer id be dead!


----------

