so how many will sell their 70-200f4 for the new IS version

[05Xrunner]

So how many will be upgrading to the new IS version when it comes out.
I am hoping that its around 800-850 in price wich I thing would be reasonable.
I know I will be making the change
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3344/06082303eu0.jpg
I am excited as hell just thinking about it

[SuzyView]

Give me a price for your old one. I'd consider buying used.

[05Xrunner]

well if it comes out I would sell mine for 520 with the Hoya UV filter

[SuzyView]

If the Canon rebates or incentives don't come out before October, PM and we can deal. :)

[05Xrunner]

ok..:)

[Calzinger]

Is this even for real? I've seen that site pop up a few times on the forum with ridiculous new lenses, like the 50 f/1.2L. After studying it, that picture just doesn't look right. I could be totally wrong though.

If Canon were to market IS on the 70-200 f/4L, I think it would be the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. Then we would have the 24-70L vs 24-105L debate for telephotos.

[liza]

I wouldn't buy it, as I really want an f/2.8 lens for low light stuff. I wish Canon would stop sitting on their thumbs and come up with a lens like the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. All these f/4 lenses are getting annoying!

[05Xrunner]

I would think it would be under 1000 so cause its still f4 and they would try and take some sales from the sigma 70-200

[05Xrunner]

whats wrong with f4...personally I havnt seen anytime where 2.8 woulda really made a huge differnce.

[Calzinger]

whats wrong with f4...personally I havnt seen anytime where 2.8 woulda really made a huge differnce.
If you've ever used 2.8, you would know. Trust me, 2.8 makes that difference.

[05Xrunner]

If you've ever used 2.8, you would know. Trust me, 2.8 makes that difference.
i have my sigma 150 2.8 macro i used at the zoo
and well switching between the 70-200 and that..i really saw nothing that was mind blowing different in shutter speeds.
when in the monkey house i saw maybe 1/10 shutter speed faster on the 2.8 it seemed..but thats not gonna make any real difference

[Cobra351]

Depending on the price of the new lens I will likely sell mine to get the IS version.

[Raymate]

No I love my f4 just the way it is :)

[tommy_london]

when in the monkey house i saw maybe 1/10 shutter speed faster on the 2.8 it seemed..but thats not gonna make any real difference

But that 10th of a second might be the difference between getting a blurred or a sharp shot. It's not all about shutter speed though - using DOF to isolate something/someone from their background or surroundings is much more effective with a 2.8.

[05Xrunner]

ehhh..I like the f4 and it works well for me.
To each thier own

[liza]

whats wrong with f4...personally I havnt seen anytime where 2.8 woulda really made a huge differnce.

Try shooting night time high school football with an f/4 lens, and you'll soon see the difference.

[equetefue]

I used to own a 120-300 f2.8 and I can tell you it does make some diference, but when you consider $$ and weight, it really comes to how deep pockets are and if the user really needed. I'm very happy with my 4L but really considering the newer IS version.

[In2Photos]

But that 10th of a second might be the difference between getting a blurred or a sharp shot. It's not all about shutter speed though - using DOF to isolate something/someone from their background or surroundings is much more effective with a 2.8.

One stop would make a difference between 1/125 and 1/250 but "that 10th of a second might be the difference between getting a blurred or a sharp shot" just doesn't hold true. Do you really think that 1/240 vs. 1/250 will make a difference? The DOF between f/2.8 and f/4 can be great though.

[liza]

I used to own a 120-300 f2.8 ...

I'd kill for that lens! :)

[equetefue]

very very heavy and extremely shallow DOF. Miss it dearly, but I sold when I swap from Nikon to Canon.

To be honest, I was always double guessing myself on this lens because it was my only 3rd party lens. I had both TC's for it too.

[Andy_T]

One stop would make a difference between 1/125 and 1/250 but "that 10th of a second might be the difference between getting a blurred or a sharp shot" just doesn't hold true. Do you really think that 1/240 vs. 1/250 will make a difference? The DOF between f/2.8 and f/4 can be great though.

Ahem, Mike, please keep to the underlying basic maths so that nobody reading your statement gets confused.

f/2.8 always allows twice as much light into the lens as f/4.0. So the only way you could say the difference between using an f/4 lens and an f/2.8 lens is 1/10 is, well, if you have either 1/10 or 1/20 shutter speed :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Grooby]

if I upgrade, i will get the f2.8 IS instead. f4 is too slow in dark situations.

[In2Photos]

Ahem, Tommy, please keep to the underlying basic maths so that nobody reading your statement gets confused.

f/2.8 always allows twice as much light into the lens as f/4.0. So the only way you could say the difference between using an f/4 lens and an d/2.8 lens is 1/10 is, well, if you have either 1/10 or 1/20 shutter speed :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

I understand that completely. I guess I just didn't state it as eloquently as you did. I am not confused and know what the "basic maths" are for photography. My point was that any additional 1/10 of a second, as tommy wrote it, would not do anything more to assure the difference between a sharp or blurred photograph.

[tommy_london]

Try shooting in a dimly lit church (on the banks of Loch Lonond in December) and you'll soon realise that even 1/10 can make a difference.

[In2Photos]

Try shooting in a dimly lit church (on the banks of Loch Lonond in December) and you'll soon realise that even 1/10 can make a difference.

for a 70-200 lens?

[roanjohn]

One stop difference is not such a big deal now that digital cameras have switchable ISO's.

Ro1

[Ciqala]

One stop difference is not such a big deal now that digital cameras have switchable ISO's.

Ro1

it is if you're stuck at the highest iso and you're still not getting the shutter speeds you want or if you would rather reduce the iso and lose some of the noise instead.

[tommy_london]

for a 70-200 lens?

i shoot with a 80-200 but the principle is the same - the more light the better. Any gain in shutter speed is going to help in those less than ideal conditions.

(as does a pair of thick gloves for scottish winters :lol: )

[In2Photos]

i shoot with a 80-200 but the principle is the same - the more light the better. Any gain in shutter speed is going to help in those less than ideal conditions.

(as does a pair of thick gloves for scottish winters :lol: )

I agree that the more light the better. I just have a hard time believing that 1/10 of a second will make that big of a difference in a 70-200 lens (this is the lens that the thread is based on). But perhaps someone with more steady hands can see the differnce. Or is it the gloves that help?:lol:

[roanjohn]

it is if you're stuck at the highest iso and you're still not getting the shutter speeds you want or if you would rather reduce the iso and lose some of the noise instead.

Use RAW, underexpose and use Noise Ninja..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

IN all seriousness though.............. If I had a choice between 2.8 to 4...I would always go for the faster glass.

Ro1

[SoaringUSAEagle]

I think IS with the f4 is definitely needed... It'd be a sweet lens

[sugarzebra]

Having IS is a real benefit to any lens, providing up to three more stops of effective hand holding ability. From a purely pragmatic perspective this is better than one extra stop created by an extra f/stop (not withstanding the DOF issues). Hopefully the lens is priced so that upgrading is affordable.

[Travis F]

From a purely pragmatic perspective this is better than one extra stop created by an extra f/stop (not withstanding the DOF issues). Hopefully the lens is priced so that upgrading is affordable.

But what if you are trying to stop motion say in a nighttime football game (or any field game) . That extra stop comes in real handy there whereas the IS on an f4 won't help you too much.

Travis

[Mike Bell]

But what if you are trying to stop motion say in a nighttime football game (or any field game) . That extra stop comes in real handy there whereas the IS on an f4 won't help you too much.

Travis

Agreed - for most action sports you need a fast shutter speed anyway so IS becomes irrelevant. Just extra weight.

[Wilt]

I posted this on another thread (specs from Photozone tests)...Adding IS does not mean that the same optical design will be used... the f/4 IS might be like the f/2.8 IS...a decline from the non-IS in performance!

Test specs taken from photozone tests of the 3 zooms.

f/4 lens
.....at f/4..........at f/5.6
70 1952c, 1880e; 2032c, 1945e
135 1963c, 1708e; 1988c, 1809e
200 1820c, 1780e; 1999c, 1780e

f/2.8 lens
.....at f/4..........at f/5.6
70 1913c, 1916e; 1841c, 1848e
135 1951c, 1838e; 1987c, 1891e
200 1888c, 1699e; 1672c, 1555e

f/2.8 IS lens
.....at f/4..........at f/5.6
70 1935c,1498e; 1960c, 1648e
135 1616c, 1623e; 1827c, 1724e
200 1759c, 1681e; 1795c, 1742e

The Photozone tests said something about not being conclusive from the test of one sample, but this was a randomly provided lens that was not cherry picked by Canon just for testing!

I own the f/4L since I don't need the speed (I don't shoot sports at night)

[coreypolis]

One stop difference is not such a big deal now that digital cameras have switchable ISO's.

Ro1



2.8 gives you better DOF, an extra stop of light, a brighter viewfinder, and better MF abilities. Thats priceless

[Wilt]

2.8 gives you better DOF, an extra stop of light, a brighter viewfinder, and better MF abilities. Thats priceless

BTW, do you write for Mastercard ads?

[coreypolis]

BTW, do you write for Mastercard ads?

nope, just shoot a lot of naturaly low lit enviornments :D

[Calzinger]

My guess is that this rumored lens would be the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. Now do you go for speed or for IS? Sound like a familiar question?

[TheSteveMadden]

Ahem, Mike, please keep to the underlying basic maths so that nobody reading your statement gets confused.

f/2.8 always allows twice as much light into the lens as f/4.0. So the only way you could say the difference between using an f/4 lens and an f/2.8 lens is 1/10 is, well, if you have either 1/10 or 1/20 shutter speed :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

Close... but not quite. A shutter speed improvement of 1/10s would mean going from 1/5s to 1/10s (i.e. 2/10 minus 1/10)

Please don't respond, Andy. This is not important enough for your 8000th post ;)

Congratulations in advance.

[whiteflyer]

My guess is that this rumored lens would be the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. Now do you go for speed or for IS? Sound like a familiar question?

There is no debate here, as the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS has been discontinued here in the UK

[sugarzebra]

But what if you are trying to stop motion say in a nighttime football game (or any field game) . That extra stop comes in real handy there whereas the IS on an f4 won't help you too much.

Travis

I agree, that one f/stop doubles the amount of light entering the camera, so the f/2.8 trumps the f/4 every time, however in the low light situation that you are proposing (pushing the lens to its functional limits) it is unlikely that either lens will be able to stop motion on the field because the shutter speeds will be too slow. When you get into the slower shutter speeds you also introduce more camera shake, which is another reason for IS (even though motion in the frame wont be stopped)! The best solution for the low light events is to leave the zooms at home and use a f/1.8 prime ;)

[Tom W]

The best solution for the low light events is to leave the zooms at home and use a f/1.8 prime ;)

But Canon doesn't make an f/1.8 prime long enough to use. Or at least they haven't announced one yet...

[Calzinger]

There is no debate here, as the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS has been discontinued here in the UK
How long has this been the case? I knew the non-IS was an old lens, but I didn't realize that they already discontinued it. I wonder why, it's still a great lens and would still be bought over the f/4L IS by some people who have lower light needs.

[whiteflyer]

I have the Canonone 2006 catalogue at hand, This is a scan from the bottom of page 37

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=103598&d=1156110761

[CoolToolGuy]

I won't doubt that the catalog is genuine, but what does that mean?

In this world of Internet photo stores like B&H, if they sell it, it is not really discontinued.

Perhaps the catalog you have is an earlier publishing date than what we see here in the 'States. . .

Have Fun,

[coreypolis]

it takes a while to run out of the supply also, most people go for the IS or f/4 instead

[kram]

Does anyone know the dimensions and weight of the new F4 IS?

That could well be the factor in deciding whether I will trade up my F4.

[Pompo]

well said! Canon come up with something killer!!!!!!!!!!

I wouldn't buy it, as I really want an f/2.8 lens for low light stuff. I wish Canon would stop sitting on their thumbs and come up with a lens like the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. All these f/4 lenses are getting annoying!

[05Xrunner]

well after seeing a price of 1250..I wont be getting this lens..I can find a used 2.8 IS version for only a few bucks more and just get that...man what a stupid marketing this one is by canon 700bucks more then the f4 non IS

[Calzinger]

well after seeing a price of 1250..I wont be getting this lens..I can find a used 2.8 IS version for only a few bucks more and just get that...man what a stupid marketing this one is by canon 700bucks more then the f4 non IS
Hate to say I told ya so. ;)

Where did you get this information anyway?

[grego]

How long has this been the case? I knew the non-IS was an old lens, but I didn't realize that they already discontinued it. I wonder why, it's still a great lens and would still be bought over the f/4L IS by some people who have lower light needs.

Because they are crappy with some of their decisions. Put focus on the f/4 IS or 2.8 IS.Heck, they might help Sigma sell even more 2.8's once the discountinued effect takes place.

[05Xrunner]

Hate to say I told ya so. ;)

Where did you get this information anyway?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1156392005.html

I am still hoping this is MSRP and its sold for less. I just cant see how this is even smart for them to price it at almost 1300..I mean you can get a used 2.8IS for just $100 more and get the 2.8 for less
I bet sigma is loving this...sure makes thier 70-200 much more appealing

[Calzinger]

You know I'm not surprised that Canon is selling it for so much. Look at how much more the IS is on the 2.8Ls, over $600 more just for IS. I definitely think Sigma sales will boost too.

It's funny how putting a IS on an L suddenly doubles the price where putting IS on a consumer lens is still dirty cheap like with the 70-300 IS, which is still a fantastic lens.

I'm just disappointed that they will be discontinuing the 2.8L non-IS. I know there are many photographers that would pick speed over IS since speed is actually free light. Oh well, I know I'll be selling mine for the 2.8 IS but hopefully I can still get a good resell value (like $1000).

[05Xrunner]

yea 600 over the non IS BUT
this is the f4 and its almost $700 over...I just dont see it being worth it at all now..its more then double the price of the non IS. I would rather just pick up a used 2.8IS for very little more or even a 2.8 non IS for less

[In2Photos]

Because they are crappy with some of their decisions. Put focus on the f/4 IS or 2.8 IS.Heck, they might help Sigma sell even more 2.8's once the discountinued effect takes place.

I guess that is why they are number 1 in the camera market, because of crappy decisions.:rolleyes:

[grego]

I guess that is why they are number 1 in the camera market, because of crappy decisions.:rolleyes:

You can be #1 and still make a crappy decision here or there. Microsoft is #1, but they've made numerous mistakes. I also think they skimp on features in their non-1D bodies. Look at the 10D, 20D. Took them long enough to add spot metering, 1/3 ISO stops.

Consumer wise, I think people lose out. Obviously there'll still be used copies but eventually, you won't find it new. Of course from a money standpoint they'll still win as more might throw in a few more hundred and get the 2.8 IS.

[Pete-eos]

any ideas on a release date for this? drive down the price of the f/4 non IS?

[grego]

any ideas on a release date for this? drive down the price of the f/4 non IS?

Just buy used, when you see the crazy amount put on sale just like 50 1.4's.

[DLow604]

I just bought a 70-200L f4, however, I still have 2 more days to return it for store credit which I will probably end up doing. I think I can wait a bit until Canon officially announces the price for the 70-200L f4 IS. If the price is really out there I have no problem buying the non-IS back, the IQ is amazing!

[grego]

I just bought a 70-200L f4, however, I still have 2 more days to return it for store credit which I will probably end up doing. I think I can wait a bit until Canon officially announces the price for the 70-200L f4 IS. If the price is really out there I have no problem buying the non-IS back, the IQ is amazing!

Well, its going to be priced near the current 70-200 2.8 Non IS, if you want somewhat of a gauge.

[DLow604]

Hmm... IS for $5-600 more...damn

[blonde]

oh well, i guess i won't be buying this lens after all :) i am sorry, i like IS but there is not way in hell i am paying so much for this when i can pick up the 2.8 IS for a bit more and the non-IS 2.8 for the same price. i swear to god, just when i get excited about Canon's actions, they go and screw it with something like this...

[grego]

Pre-Photokina 2006: The first of two new lenses from Canon is a image stabilized 'version' of the current EF 70-200 mm F4L. With this new stabilized lens Canon are boasting no less than 4 stops of stabilization (meaning you could use a shutter speed 4 stops/EVs slower than without it). Despite the addition of image stabilization the lens remains the same size as its non-stabilized sibling and is only slightly heavier. This lens should be available in November for $1250 (US).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082414canon70-200f4lens.asp

[Servo'd]

if anyone plans to sell a lightly used f/4 non-IS, i'll be looking for it come november... gotta be in mint condition though :p

[Calzinger]

if anyone plans to sell a lightly used f/4 non-IS, i'll be looking for it come november... gotta be in mint condition though :p
I hope I won't be getting a bunch of people looking for a cheap 2.8L when I sell it next spring.

[Incredirebelz]

prolly not... if i have the f4L already, which i do, i'd save up for the 2.8 IS or maybe a future 100-300 2.8L IS. But if i m buying my arsenal from scratch, i wouldnt mind picking up the F4L IS. I shoot low light with teh 70-200 only occasionally... the F4L with flash is good for literally all situations i'd be in.

[rklepper]

Most were going to sell them anyway.


So how many will be upgrading to the new IS version when it comes out.
I am hoping that its around 800-850 in price wich I thing would be reasonable.
I know I will be making the change

I am excited as hell just thinking about it

[JNunn]

Most were going to sell them anyway.

I disagree. The 70-200L f/4 works well for me and I have no plans to sell it. IS would be nice, but not at double the price. What would REALLY be an improvement is a 100-400 f/4 IS or 100-400 f/5.6 IS either one with the latest IS version, not to mention a 400 f/5.6 with IS. One can only hope....

[grego]

I disagree. The 70-200L f/4 works well for me and I have no plans to sell it. IS would be nice, but not at double the price. What would REALLY be an improvement is a 100-400 f/4 IS or 100-400 f/5.6 IS either one with the latest IS version, not to mention a 400 f/5.6 with IS. One can only hope....

A lot buy the 70-200 f/4 and then move up to a 2.8 brother when they have the money. That's usually why the 70-200 f/4 is quite common in a buy/sell forums. It has very good resale value though, which is nice so the seller still wins.

[I Simonius]

So how many will be upgrading to the new IS version when it comes out.
I am hoping that its around 800-850 in price wich I thing would be reasonable.
I know I will be making the change
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3344/06082303eu0.jpg
I am excited as hell just thinking about it


If the IQ is as good as my non IS, and the wheight isn't any greater then - yerrss... - I will

Should cost about £600 + in the UK
EDIT: now listed as £999 (too much!)- I will probably sell the non IS version anyway as I hardly ever use it, in fact I never use it, 85mm, my longest prime, is a long as I ever tend to go

Har har - new canons for me ol' galleon- ye arrr

[printsrich]

if anyone plans to sell a lightly used f/4 non-IS, i'll be looking for it come november... gotta be in mint condition though :p

I'll be selling one in mint condition as soon as the IS comes out. I bought the lens for an Africa trip that was postponed until next year. I'm traveling again in December of this year and want to take the IS with me.
eBay will be full of the non IS lenses in November or as soon as it's realeased.
Right around $500 is a great price for that lens. the new one will cost me $1200 !