Sample images that show the difference of the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM and EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM

Hope this link helps.

(link).

And, yes to the rest of your questions. I have owned the non-IS version and currently own the IS version. The IS version is as sharp as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM based on the same cropped samples from the above link.

Bryan,

From what I understand, the differences in image quality between the four variations of that lens are insignificant. Aside from budget, make your decision based on aperture, IS, and weight / size.

The f/4 IS and f/2.8 non-IS are the most likely to be useful to most people. If f/4 is wide enough for your needs, it’s still likely to be slow enough for the IS to be useful. If you need the f/2.8, it’s most likely to be because you need fast shutter speeds to stop subject motion, making IS less useful.

There are certainly good reasons to get one or the other of the other two, though. If you do a lot of tripod-based landscape photography, the f/4 non-IS is almost a no-brainer. And the f/2.8 IS is an excellent choice for low-light photography, though most people who do a lot of that sort of thing tend to prefer an even faster prime or two.

The early reports of the new version of the f/2.8 IS are that it’s, somehow, been sprinkled with magic faery dust that makes an already-superlative lens significantly better.

Cheers,

b&

Just to add to Ben's salient advice, I would recommend the IS version. Considerations of comparative sharpness aside, I have found this lens to be very portable (it's quite light and compact), and its IS feature to be very useful. I've caught decent images at 1/15s and 200mm handheld, which would not be possible without IS. IS will not, of course, help with subject motion (as Ben has said), but it works great with static or slow moving subjects.

The 70-200/4 IS L is part of what I consider to be the near-perfect walkabout trio (for full frame), the other two lenses being the 17-40/4 L and the 24-105/4 IS L.

I have the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS). It is a great lens, BUT if you have the money get the IS version.

"IS will not, of course, help with subject motion (as Ben has said),"

It depends on which direction is the motion. The 70-200mm f/4 has a Mode 2 IS function. This is very helpful in panning.

I've owned both and, at least my copies, were in the same ball park in terms of image quality. When used on a 5DII (full frame), my IS version had a slight edge in sharpness over the non-IS around the borders of the frame. I don't think you'd see much difference on APS-C since the edges are cropped.

Probably the most significant diff, save IS, is the IS version focuses a little closer. I sold the non-IS version and bought the IS version and that single feature was very important to my shoot from the hip style. A lot more keepers. If you use a tripod, you need to remember to disable IS as it can actually mess up the photo.

the f4 versions don't use the same glass. IS version is the sharpest (of all versions). however, difference is very slight.

f4 IS version is one of my favorite lenses. i don't like zooms. love primes. yet this optic is that good. as good as some primes. just a bit softer than the best primes, like the 135 f2, etc.

as for using it for shooting crowds -- i just don't know. you should probably try one out hands-on at a shop

Go for the 70-200mm 4.0 non-IS version. For the price you can't beat it. Here's my cat Oliver making a case to go outside with the 70-200mm 4.0.

I have the opposite advice as Gil. I've used both the IS and non-IS, and for me the IS is simply an obvious win—it's just as good if not better for image quality, but the IS enables some shots that I would miss or mess up due to camera shake. With a 1.4 extender, it becomes a serviceable 300mm f/5.6 with IS (at 300mm on APS-C, IS becomes even more useful). Plus—and this is just personal psychology—if I bought the non-IS I'd eventually want to upgrade to IS later (at a loss), whereas with the IS version I'm content knowing that there's no other lens quite like it (the f/2.8 lenses are literally twice as heavy!).

I do confess however that the price difference is really significant, making this decision much harder for some people. For me it's worth it as my main telephoto lens, but YMMV. And Gil is absolutely right that the non-IS is probably one of the greatest deals in the Canon lens lineup, even with the recent price increases.