When the new 70-200 f4 IS comes out.....

[Ricky350D]

... what will happen to the 70-200 f4? Will it be discontinued? Or will it be sold alongside the IS version? If so do you think the non-IS version will drop in price?

Ricky

[Billginthekeys]

the 70-200 F4 will continue to be sold, due to its popularity and much smaller price tag. canon has confirmed that.

[Ricky350D]

Ahh good! I'm still debating whether to purcahse one or not (bad decision maker!!), and i didn't want to leave it too late!

[ed rader]

Ahh good! I'm still debating whether to purcahse one or not (bad decision maker!!), and i didn't want to leave it too late!

even if it were discontinued (it won't be) there will be plenty of used non-IS lenses in circulation and maybe at a discount because of people upgrading.

i'd be hardpressed to sell my f4 because it's such a great lens and i really mostly use it for action and in sunny conditions...but if the new lens is as great as it looks to be who's to say my habits can't change ;) ?

ed rader

[asylumxl]

im hoping price goes down cos i intend to get one in the coming months :)!

[rabidcow]

i'd be hardpressed to sell my f4 because it's such a great lens and i really mostly use it for action and in sunny conditions

I'm in the same boat, I don't want to carry a 2.8 around all day if I don't have to. The f/4 non IS will long stand as king of high quality yet affordable long zoom lenses.

[wolverinesr1]

i see that B&H is announcing the 70-200 f4 IS as coming soon with a price tag of 1.249.00
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=457678&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[ed rader]

i see that B&H is announcing the 70-200 f4 IS as coming soon with a price tag of 1.249.00
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=457678&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

badger graphic has the same price showing. i seriously doubt that this lens will be found for under $1100.

ed rader

[762x51]

Twice the price just for IS. I love IS and all, but that just seems absurd to me.

[Billginthekeys]

thats exacly what i thought too. sure its weathersealed now too... but i mean comeon, thats like mabye $300-$400 worth of improvements. its not twice the lens it was, and thats for sure.

[ed rader]

Twice the price just for IS. I love IS and all, but that just seems absurd to me.

the price difference is about the same as between the f2.8 and f2.8 IS.

plus it's a newer generation of IS.

4-stop IS!

in my mind that would make the f2.8 IS overpriced.

if the new zoom has IQ and bokeh comparable to the f4 non-IS i think it's a hell of a bargain @ $1250.

ed rader

[steved110]

If your shutter speed is 1/360 or greater - not hard to get even in the UK where the sun don't shine (much) - then camera shake ispretty minimal. i have only a few times struggled with camera shake with this lens, and that has been because i wasn't paying attention.

If I had to pay twice as much for my f/4 - I'd still be using my 75-300 II!

I have other lenses to get before I even consider this one, and even then , I'd probably save longer and get the f/2.8 for not that much more.

No way is it worth the $ to me.

[grego]

the price difference is about the same as between the f2.8 and f2.8 IS.

plus it's a newer generation of IS.

4-stop IS!

in my mind that would make the f2.8 IS overpriced.

if the new zoom has IQ and bokeh comparable to the f4 non-IS i think it's a hell of a bargain @ $1250.

ed rader

How is it overpriced if you get the same effective abilities from the 70-200 IS's system? You have an extra stop on the f/4 already. They actually even out because the 2.8 has an extra stop on F/4 already. But then the actual extra stop is more valuable if you are looking to stop motion.

At 1250, the 70-200 IS is only about 350 dollars less. Not to much more.

[ed rader]

How is it overpriced if you get the same effective abilities from the 70-200 IS's system? You have an extra stop on the f/4 already. They actually even out because the 2.8 has an extra stop on F/4 already. But then the actual extra stop is more valuable if you are looking to stop motion.

At 1250, the 70-200 IS is only about 350 dollars less. Not to much more.

there you go again, Grego :D .

i am talking about the IS unit only.

if both lenses cost $600 more than its non-IS counterpart and one lens has the older 3-stop IS and the other the newest 4-stop which would you suspect to be overpriced?

okay, i don't think the 70-200 f2.8L is overpriced but i also think @ $1250 the f4 IS is one hell of a deal.

if the f4 IS has better IQ than the than the f4 non-IS it will be a grand slam because you know the opposite holds true for the f2.8 zooms.

i think potentially the new release could be the sharpest of canon's four 70-200L zooms ...at least that's what i am hoping :D .

ed rader

[calicokat]

Far too popular a lens not to sell

[incendy]

I am kind of glad I sold mine a month ago=D

It is a great lens though, I am sure it will hold its value for a long time

[Tsmith]

If this lens has at least the same IQ as the non IS it'll be hard for me to pass up.

[mbellot]

if the f4 IS has better IQ than the than the f4 non-IS it will be a grand slam because you know the opposite holds true for the f2.8 zooms.
I've always found that kind of thinking hilarious. All four of the current 70-200s (yes, I'm including the Sigma) have such microscopic differences in IQ that it only shows up in manufactured tests - never in real world shooting.


IMHO the new f/4 is overpriced by at least $400. Rather than looking at absolute dollars I think percentages tell a better story.

70-200/4 (non-IS) $585
70-200/2.8 (non-IS) $1140
70-200/2.8 IS $1700

The 70-200 IS is ~ 1.5x the cost of the non-IS, which should put the f/4 IS in the $850 - $900 price range, especially when you consider the IS elements and other components for the f/4 are going to be smaller/lighter/cheaper than the f/2.8

[Jamie Holladay]

yep I think the f/4 IS is a little over priced as well. The IQ of the f/4 Non IS is great. There is no doubt in my mind that I could not benefit from the IS. However, I just cant see paying $1200.00 for f/4 IS when for $500 more I can get the f/2.8 IS. Or for the same I can get the f/2.8 non IS. To me it is simple economics. The value of the stops out weights the value of the IS.

[ed rader]

yep I think the f/4 IS is a little over priced as well. The IQ of the f/4 Non IS is great. There is no doubt in my mind that I could not benefit from the IS. However, I just cant see paying $1200.00 for f/4 IS when for $500 more I can get the f/2.8 IS. Or for the same I can get the f/2.8 non IS. To me it is simple economics. The value of the stops out weights the value of the IS.

well i think most people who will buy the F4 -- and there will be many -- will do so mainly because of the compact size of the lens, not to save a few hundred dollars.

this lens will weigh almost half that of the f2.8 IS.

of course there is no denying that f2.8 is superior to f4 but even the best lens does you no good if it's too heavy to pack unless you think you may need it.

of course paid professionals and many enthusiasts will opt for the f2.8 but i think this new lens will be major hit :D .

ed rader

[ed rader]

I've always found that kind of thinking hilarious. All four of the current 70-200s (yes, I'm including the Sigma) have such microscopic differences in IQ that it only shows up in manufactured tests - never in real world shooting.


IMHO the new f/4 is overpriced by at least $400. Rather than looking at absolute dollars I think percentages tell a better story.

70-200/4 (non-IS) $585
70-200/2.8 (non-IS) $1140
70-200/2.8 IS $1700

The 70-200 IS is ~ 1.5x the cost of the non-IS, which should put the f/4 IS in the $850 - $900 price range, especially when you consider the IS elements and other components for the f/4 are going to be smaller/lighter/cheaper than the f/2.8

so you think that's how lenses are priced :D ?

every time canon puts out new lenses there is a chorus of whining and wailing about the rip-off prices followed by a shortage of lenses and plenty of guys lined up willing to pay full pop.

it'll be no different this time....:D .

ed rader

[ed rader]

Far too popular a lens not to sell

how many times have you heard someone say "i wish canon would make a 70-200L f4 IS"?

if i'm not mistaken this has been the most requested dream lens for quite awhile.

ed rader

[JMHPhotography]

how many times have you heard someone say "i wish canon would make a 70-200L f4 IS"?

if i'm not mistaken this has been the most requested dream lens for quite awhile.

ed rader

I think personally we've heard that cry because people were expecting it to be still cheaper than the f/2.8 non IS. I think it's overpriced... but everything these days is so people will still buy it..

[grego]

how many times have you heard someone say "i wish canon would make a 70-200L f4 IS"?

if i'm not mistaken this has been the most requested dream lens for quite awhile.

ed rader

But then people buy the 70-200 f/4 L as their first L commonly(or they buy the 17-40), because its affordable and has quality. Then there are some people who just can't afford the 2.8 versions and wait to upgrade later. And then there are some people who wish the f/4 had IS. So I don't necessairly think that's the top dream. Everyone has their different reasons, just like everyone has different things that they shoot.

[mbellot]

so you think that's how lenses are priced :D ?

Nope, I was simply stating thats how I (and apparently many others) thought it would shake out. Doubling the cost of the lens for IS just doesn't pass the common sense test.

And if you're going to use a fixed "cost" for IS in the $400 - $600 range then I bet there are plenty of people who would love to see a 17-85 non-IS for $100.

It makes no difference to me, I have my f/2.8 IS and I'm totally satisfied. I'm sure the f/4 IS will be a big hit too, but I won't be too surprised when the price drops after the initial round of gearheads finish their buying.


of course there is no denying that f2.8 is superior to f4 but even the best lens does you no good if it's too heavy to pack unless you think you may need it.
Its three pounds. If thats "too heavy' maybe its time to switch to a P&S, or at least re-think how you pack/carry your lenses.

[05Xrunner]

Its three pounds. If thats "too heavy' maybe its time to switch to a P&S, or at least re-think how you pack/carry your lenses.
Well thats not true..i got a buddy who bought the 2.8 IS
He cant seem to get a good shot because when he was younger he had brain surgery and it affected his arm and he cant hold alot up and it seems a bit to heavy for him. He bought that one cause it was the best but i tried to convince him that it might be but its no good to him cause he cant control the camera shake cause of the weight. I tried to convince him to get the f4 since its so mch lighter and would be able to hold it up more.
So just because might be someone out there that cant handle the weight doesnt mean they should go to a P&S

[markyb]

seen a uk price of £960 for the f4 IS .thats about £300 - £400 cheaper than the 2.8 IS

[ed rader]

Nope, I was simply stating thats how I (and apparently many others) thought it would shake out. Doubling the cost of the lens for IS just doesn't pass the common sense test.

And if you're going to use a fixed "cost" for IS in the $400 - $600 range then I bet there are plenty of people who would love to see a 17-85 non-IS for $100.

It makes no difference to me, I have my f/2.8 IS and I'm totally satisfied. I'm sure the f/4 IS will be a big hit too, but I won't be too surprised when the price drops after the initial round of gearheads finish their buying.



Its three pounds. If thats "too heavy' maybe its time to switch to a P&S, or at least re-think how you pack/carry your lenses.

when all else fails tell the guy to buy a P&S :D :D .

no need to feel threatened by this new lens if you already have the best :D . canon has added another option to its great line-up of 70-200L zooms and i wonder why that makes folks angry?

the price won't drop much on this lens. just like the 24-105. maybe the f2.8s will drop if this new lens has superior IQ :eek: .

ed rader

[ed rader]

Well thats not true..i got a buddy who bought the 2.8 IS
He cant seem to get a good shot because when he was younger he had brain surgery and it affected his arm and he cant hold alot up and it seems a bit to heavy for him. He bought that one cause it was the best but i tried to convince him that it might be but its no good to him cause he cant control the camera shake cause of the weight. I tried to convince him to get the f4 since its so mch lighter and would be able to hold it up more.
So just because might be someone out there that cant handle the weight doesnt mean they should go to a P&S

no, the P&S slam is pretty common on these forums when someone is trying to tell you he is a real photographer and you aren't.

it is used a lot whenever canon releases a new lens :D :D .

ed rader

[ed rader]

But then people buy the 70-200 f/4 L as their first L commonly(or they buy the 17-40), because its affordable and has quality. Then there are some people who just can't afford the 2.8 versions and wait to upgrade later. And then there are some people who wish the f/4 had IS. So I don't necessairly think that's the top dream. Everyone has their different reasons, just like everyone has different things that they shoot.

i don't disagree. but there are plenty of folks who have been salivating for a portable zoom with IS and L optics.

this new lens would eliminate the need for both a huge zoom that you pack occasionally and a travel zoom.

for many people it will be the best choice.

i don't see why this bothers some guys.

ed rader

[ed rader]

I think personally we've heard that cry because people were expecting it to be still cheaper than the f/2.8 non IS. I think it's overpriced... but everything these days is so people will still buy it..

which recent lens by canon did you feel was fairly priced?

17-55?

24-105?

70-300?

ed rader

[mbellot]

which recent lens by canon did you feel was fairly priced?

17-55?

Hardly.

24-105?
Hmm. Same price as a 24-70, one stop slower but has more reach and IS. I'd say that was "fairly priced" by "L" standards.

70-300?
Assuming you are NOT referring to the DO, I'd have to say yes again.

Sigma 70-300 APO is $200, the Canon adds IS, USM and is an OEM lens. I'd say those add up pretty close to the additional $350 in the Canon price.



You forgot the 85/1.2 Mk II and the soon to be released 50/1.2 lenses. Shining examples of Canon's "unfairly" priced lenses.

when all else fails tell the guy to buy a P&S
Or you could read the entire suggestion. :rolleyes:

no, the P&S slam is pretty common on these forums when someone is trying to tell you he is a real photographer and you aren't.

Real photographer? Me? :lol:

The snapshooters would be offended if I tried to represent myself as having their level of expertise.


So just because might be someone out there that cant handle the weight doesnt mean they should go to a P&S
Not what I said at all. If you have the 2.8 IS and can use it effectively then ed's assertion that:

the best lens does you no good if it's too heavy to pack unless you think you may need it.
is flawed. Your friend's situation is different, as is the case with many others who find the weight too much for actual use. The question of bringing it along in a camera bag is completely different. The "bag weight" difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8 IS is about one liter of bottled water.



Plain and simple this lens is overpriced. If it sells well regardless of that fact then good for Canon for being able to squeeze every last nickel out of their customers.

[Pete-eos]

I may have missed it, will the Non-IS f/4 drop in price any time soon and if so by much, are we talking £20 here or far more?

[mbellot]

I may have missed it, will the Non-IS f/4 drop in price any time soon and if so by much, are we talking £20 here or far more?

Its unlikely a new (ie. store purchase) non-IS f/4 will drop in price, but I'd bet there will be a fair number of used ones available shortly after the IS version starts shipping.