Question re: 70-200mm f4 L

[ddb]

After years of shooting with a D30, I sold it and both my lenses and bought a 40D. Now I need to get a couple of lenses. I sold a EF 28-135IS and a EF 70-300IS with the D30. I never liked the quality of the shorter zoom, thought it was rather soft. I want to get the EF 70-200mm f4 L but am concerned about the weight and the lack of IS. Is it capable of being handheld and get good quality or is it best as a tripod mounted lens? The price right now for the L lens and a 70-300 IS is very close. Also need some suggestions for a shorter zoom, I probably will go third party due to cost factors. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I really need to get something by this weekend so I can start taking some pics.

[tfiorda]

If you maintain the rule - 1/focal length * 1.6(for the sensor factor) = shutter speed - you will have excellent results handholding your camera with any lens. If the light goes too low, increase the ISO to maintain this rule. IS gives you the ability to slow the shutter 2-3 stops below this allowing some of the steadiest photogs the ability to take a long lens down to around 1/60th of a second, or slower, shutter speed and still handhold.

HTH,

Tony...

[richardpcrowe]

I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS 3-4x more often than the non-IS model.

A less expensive alternate is the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens.

[ddb]

I can't afford the L IS glass yet. Have you used the 70-300IS recently? I had one of them 7-8 yrs ago and wasn't overly impressed with it. However, I have read that the newer ones are much better.

[dougsmit]

I have the 70-200 f/4L and seem to use it less with each passing year. I believe the problem is that it is an excellent compromise for many needs but not the best answer for any of them. Birds are better with a longer lens; macro is better with a macro; portraits are better with ...... you get the idea.

Let there be no mistake: All lenses work better on a tripod. As we get longer, we need to be more careful when not using a tripod and adding IS is a really good idea. I wonder if a lesser lens with IS (70-300 or 55-250) might not be a better choice for those of us with no 'L' IS options.

[HuBBaTheMan]

And i use my 70-200 L (non IS) in most shoots i do these days. But then, it's among the best lenses i have at the moment and i shoot mostly studio or with portable flash equipment so handheld long exposures are not really an issue.

And would that need arise there are tripods.

[ddb]

Thanks for the input. Went to the local camera store today and for $800 got what I think should cover my needs. Decided on the Canon 70-200 f4 L and a Sigma 24-60 f2.8 EX DG. Going out now to check them out.

[Julio]

FS: Canon 70-200 f4 IS L
Check my post , I'm selling my 70-200