Just received my 70-200 f/4 IS... maybe a little disappointed?

[timnosenzo]

EDIT: Before you read the first post and blast me for it, I posted this back in 2007, and I currently own this lens and like it, a lot. I am totally over my affliction with plastic lenses!! :)

So I just got my 70-200 f/4 IS from B&H, open it up, and I was a little surprised how cheap the lens body feels. I've had 2 of the f/4 non-IS versions and the f/2.8 non-IS and I'm pretty sure that the lens barrels were made out of metal on those, but this lens is obviously made of plastic. Has anyone else noticed this?

I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, so maybe I will change my mind once I do, but I am sort of feeling some buyers remorse here. I mean, this thing is twice the price of the non-IS version, but its built to a cheaper standard? I'm kind of feeling like for this much money I should just take the jump to the f/2.8 IS model and call it a day. :(

Am I crazy here?

[Roger Caris]

What is the weight like on the f4 IS? I found the f2.8 IS very heavy especially used on an all day wedding. The IS on the 2.8 is superb, whats it like on the f4 ?

[roqdawg]

I just ordered one of these as well, expected delivery is tomorrow. I had only seen one other post mentioning the build quality of this lens so didn't think it would be an issue...maybe this has something to do with why the 70-200 f/4 IS is a different shade of white than the other "L"s ?????

[flippinfleck]

You live in Connecticut, of course you're crazy! ;)

I've never handled any of the other 70-200's but my F4 (IS) feels quite wonderful; heavy, solid, and smooth. Is the only thing that bothers you about it the 'plasticy feel' of the barrel? Stop touching the barrel and start touching the focus/zoom rings.

In other words, get out there and get some shots in. Then decide if you like it or not compared to the others that you've handled.

>edit to add that it's an IS<

[Jonathan]

I have both the f4's and both feel pretty much the same in terms of build and weight. They are both made of the same stuff so you must be mistaken.

I agree with flippinfleck - judge the lens once you've opened the shutter, not just the box :-) I'm sure you will love it.

[Pete-eos]

Go play with the 3-4? stop IS... :)

[timnosenzo]

What is the weight like on the f4 IS? I found the f2.8 IS very heavy especially used on an all day wedding. The IS on the 2.8 is superb, whats it like on the f4 ?
Its definitely much lighter than my f/2.8 was, and only seems slightly heavier than my f/4 non-IS was. This is my first lens with IS, so I'm not sure how it is yet--but people say great things about it.

I had only seen one other post mentioning the build quality of this lens so didn't think it would be an issue...maybe this has something to do with why the 70-200 f/4 IS is a different shade of white than the other "L"s
Could be, its a different color than my f/4 non-IS was. Its almost kinda brown...

I've never handled any of the other 70-200's but my F4 (IS) feels quite wonderful; heavy, solid, and smooth. Is the only thing that bothers you about it the 'plasticy feel' of the barrel? Stop touching the barrel and start touching the focus/zoom rings.

In other words, get out there and get some shots in. Then decide if you like it or not compared to the others that you've handled
Yeah, I haven't taken any pics with it yet, so I'm not calling B&H for an RMA yet. I guess I'm just a little surprised...

[Billginthekeys]

it should be made of the same barrel as the non IS with accomidations for the IS unit. basically i think you just need to get used to erm... i dont know it honestly should be the same.

[flippinfleck]

Surprised with what, the overall feel of it? As compared to another F4 IS you had, or a completely different lens? Even if this lens were covered with pink fuzzy frilly stuff, I would still use it.

I forget what B&H gives you for an RMA period, but take the opportunity to get out there while there's still some sunshine left in the day. Sure, it's a little windy, but at least there's no rain!

[roqdawg]

I have both the f4's and both feel pretty much the same in terms of build and weight. They are both made of the same stuff so you must be mistaken.

I agree with flippinfleck - judge the lens once you've opened the shutter, not just the box :-) I'm sure you will love it.

I read some reviews when the IS version came out that said it was pretty much identical in weight and build to the non-IS version with only some minor cosmetic differences and updated optics...so I was surprised to see comments starting to crop up about the build quality (again...mine arrives tomorrow)...so this is re-assuring.
Thanks.

[Luckie8]

I didn't know f/4 IS body is made out of plastic. Dam.. I should have kept my f/4 non IS

[Jonathan]

Both made of the same thing - read up ;-)

[Jonathan]

I read some reviews when the IS version came out that said it was pretty much identical in weight and build to the non-IS version with only some minor cosmetic differences and updated optics...so I was surprised to see comments starting to crop up about the build quality (again...mine arrives tomorrow)...so this is re-assuring.
Thanks.

You will love it - ignore this thread ;-). 3 to 4 stop IS, a special panning mode and light enough to carry around all day. Add to that the pin sharp optics, colour rendition and contrast and there is not much not to like. I sleep with mine :D

[flippinfleck]

You will love it - ignore this thread ;-). 3 to 4 stop IS, a special panning mode and light enough to carry around all day. Add to that the pin sharp optics, colour rendition and contrast and there is not much not to like. I sleep with mine :D

You must have gotten the limited-edition pink frilly one!

[cosworth]

So I just got my 70-200 f/4 IS from B&H, open it up, and I was a little surprised how cheap the lens body feels. I've had 2 of the f/4 non-IS versions and the f/2.8 non-IS and I'm pretty sure that the lens barrels were made out of metal on those, but this lens is obviously made of plastic. Has anyone else noticed this?

I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, so maybe I will change my mind once I do, but I am sort of feeling some buyers remorse here. I mean, this thing is twice the price of the non-IS version, but its built to a cheaper standard? I'm kind of feeling like for this much money I should just take the jump to the f/2.8 IS model and call it a day. :(

Am I crazy here?

It's not made of plastic. You are crazy. My first impressions of the lens were the total opposite. it felt like it was machined from billet aluminum.

What does the box say? Did they send you the wrong lens?

[timnosenzo]

Both made of the same thing - read up ;-)

Gotta be honest, I have read up. I actually couldn't find anywhere what they were made of. Its mostly the bottom portion of the lens that feels different, where the tripod ring goes on--its definitely plastic. It actually feels different than the rest of the lens. I really don't think my non-IS was plastic anywhere on the barrell, maybe I'm just remembering it wrong (although I just shipped it out yesterday). :p

I'm sure I will wind up loving the lens and keeping it, I guess I just felt that since this lens was so much more money than my non-IS it would at least be made out of the same materials. I do like the addition of the weather seals, even though I don't have a sealed body (yet). ;)

[20D_Newbie]

I was looking to upgrade my 70-200mm F4L to the IS version but I read a review on the BH Photo site that said the barrel was made of plastic. It may make sense. There is a pretty big difference in weight between the F2.8 versions but the F4 versions are almost the same. Seems strange.

[Billginthekeys]

well let me assure you that its not plastic.

[LightRules]

So I just got my 70-200 f/4 IS from B&H, open it up, and I was a little surprised how cheap the lens body feels. I've had 2 of the f/4 non-IS versions and the f/2.8 non-IS and I'm pretty sure that the lens barrels were made out of metal on those, but this lens is obviously made of plastic. Has anyone else noticed this?...Am I crazy here?

Yeh, I think you're crazy. There is practically no difference between the build quality of the Canon 7-2 lenses. Plastic? :rolleyes: No way.

[timnosenzo]

well let me assure you that its not plastic.

Do you have one of these lenses? I see in your gear list that you have a f/2.8 version--which I don't think has a plastic barrell (at least I don't think my 2.8 version did).


I was looking to upgrade my 70-200mm F4L to the IS version but I read a review on the BH Photo site that said the barrel was made of plastic. It may make sense.
Hmm, I just went and checked out the review on B&H and you're right, someone else states that theirs is plastic
"The barrel is plastic, but its really nice metal-looking plastic and lowers the weight."
Maybe B&H is building their own plastic version of this lens. ;)

[Billginthekeys]

Do you have one of these lenses? I see in your gear list that you have a f/2.8 version--which I don't think has a plastic barrell (at least I don't think my 2.8 version did).

i dont personally own one. but canon has never used plastic bodies on their L glass in the past, i dont know why they would start now. and lightrules up there has tested/owned every lens ever made minus the 1200mmL, so if says it aint plastic im going with him ;)

[Jimbo24]

My 70-200f/4L IS from B&H is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow...

[timnosenzo]

I just sent an email to Canon support to ask them (I'm sure they love settling scores on the internet), I'll let you know what they say. I may be wrong (trust me, it happens), but this baby really does feel like its made out of a different material than my non-IS was. It definitely has my curiosity... :)

[cdifoto]

Hmm, I just went and checked out the review on B&H and you're right, someone else states that theirs is plastic
"The barrel is plastic, but its really nice metal-looking plastic and lowers the weight."
Maybe B&H is building their own plastic version of this lens. ;)


You do realize that none of the following are required to write a review on the internet, don't you?

1. Ownership
2. Experience
3. Common Sense
4. A Clue

The only requirements are as follows:

1. Computer
2. Keyboard
3. Internet Connection

[timnosenzo]

I didn't say I was going to send it back based on what some guy on the internet wrote...

[squashed]

My 70-200f/4L IS from B&H is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow...

Do let us know "you're" findings.

[Jimbo24]

Do let us know "you're" findings.

I will...

[Jimbo24]

According to Canon product support, the body is supposed to be made out of metal and not plastic...

[cosworth]

I've owned all the 70-200 L lenses. They are NOT plastic. What part of this do you not understand?

[EORI]

I hope the OP didn't buy from one of those outfits in Brooklyn that ask consumers whether one wants an upgrade from the plastic mount version of an L lens. ;)

[timnosenzo]

My response from Canon...

Dear Timothy Nosenzo:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your EF
70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens inquiry.

The exterior part is made of plastic. This was a design change over the
non IS version to help reduce weight.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if we
can be of any further assistance with your EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Jason
Technical Support Representative

[timnosenzo]

I've owned all the 70-200 L lenses. They are NOT plastic. What part of this do you not understand?

Relax, I've also owned all the 70-200's except for the 2.8 IS. This isn't my first lens.

I do think its possible that earlier models may have been metal, maybe that's causing some confusion here.

[cdifoto]

My response from Canon...

Dear Timothy Nosenzo:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your EF
70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens inquiry.

The exterior part is made of plastic. This was a design change over the
non IS version to help reduce weight.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if we
can be of any further assistance with your EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Jason
Technical Support Representative

:eek:

I don't think I'd keep a plastic L. I'd have to vote with my wallet that that is unacceptable in what's supposed to be pro grade optics. I know there is really good plastic available these days, but even so...

[Jimbo24]

It sucks that it's made out of plastic. But unfortunately, I don't have 700 bucks to upgrade to the f/2.8L IS version.

[flippinfleck]

:eek:

I don't think I'd keep a plastic L. I'd have to vote with my wallet that that is unacceptable in what's supposed to be pro grade optics. I know there is really good plastic available these days, but even so...

What's the difference if it's just a plastic shell around a metal body instead of a metal shell around a metal body? I'm not saying this is what it is, but...

[HAudidoody]

What's the difference if it's just a plastic shell around a metal body instead of a metal shell around a metal body? I'm not saying this is what it is, but...

This would be good to know, as I'm about to buy one of these and I'm concerned about whether these might fall out of favor in the resale market if they're of lesser build.

[cosworth]

Oh my god people. Get off it. This lens is built so much better than the non IS version.

Resale? Are you kidding? Try and find one for sale! It's an outstanding lens that if you want to wait for a lower price or rebate ... you'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

[Pete W]

Taken from Canon's site..... Says Polycarbonate (plastic) in the description..

Remember people plastics can be as strong as metal and far more forgiving. So I would not discount it until you have tried it.....

Compact, manoeuvrable and lightweight, the world's first 4-stop Image Stabilizer lens also features the very finest in L-series lens optics to deliver stand out optical performance and operability.


Features

L-series optics
Light and compact
4-stop Image Stabilizer
f/4 through zoom range
Fluorite and UD lens elements
Fast auto focus
Environmental seals
Super Spectra coatings
Circular aperture for pleasing background blur
Soft case and lens hood


The professional’s lightweight IS telephoto zoom.



4-stop IS
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM features the world's first 4-stop Image Stabilizer (IS). Ideal for handheld work, the exceptionally accurate and sensitive IS negates the need for a tripod in many conditions. Shutter speeds up to 4 stops slower than would be otherwise possible (e.g. 1/15 sec instead of 1/200) can be used with no perceptible increase in image blur. For stabilised panning, IS Mode 2 corrects only for unwanted vertical shake.

L-series quality
The lens embodies Canon’s highest standards of L-series optics, build quality, reliability and operability. Crisp, high contrast image quality is assured right across the frame and throughout the entire zoom range. A reliable partner in tough conditions, the metal and polycarbonate construction features special environmental seals to prevent the ingress of dust and moisture.

Lightweight
With a length of just 172mm and weighing only 760g, the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is ideal for assignments where there is a need to travel light without compromising performance, operability or image quality.

Fixed aperture
With no change in aperture over the full focal length range, photographers can set exposure at the widest aperture and zoom through to 200mm without slowing shutter speed. Lens length remains constant during zooming and focusing.

Fluorite and UD lens elements
The lens incorporates a single Fluorite and two UD (ultra-low dispersion glass) lens elements to suppress secondary chromatic aberrations. The result is crisp, high contrast, undistorted images throughout the entire zoom range, without colour fringing at subject outlines.

Auto focus
A Ring-type USM (Ultrasonic motor) delivers responsive, high-speed, silent auto focus. Holding torque is excellent, stopping the focus lens group with precision and without overshoot. Full time manual focus override is available without switching out of AF. Minimum focus distance is 1.2m throughout the zoom range.

Super Spectra coatings
Optimised Super Spectra coatings and lens element shaping suppress flare and ghosting. Coatings also help achieve true colour balance and increase contrast.

Pleasing background blur
The Electro Magnetic Diaphragm (EMD) features an almost perfectly circular aperture to create an even and attractive blur from out-of-focus backgrounds.

Accessories
A cylindrical bayonet hood and soft case are included.

[bowlesbe]

Personally, I am dissatified with every lens that exists on the market to date. Every lens I use should be built with solid gold with small diamonds lining the base of the lens. Silver will suffice for the handle. The thought of a lens that is built with ANY plastic makes me hurl. I suppose that doesnt bode so well for my current collection. O well.

[roqdawg]

It sucks that it's made out of plastic. But unfortunately, I don't have 700 bucks to upgrade to the f/2.8L IS version.

I'm of the same feeling here....mine arrives tomorrow as well.
I wasn't going to shell out another $700 bucks on top of this one for the 2.8IS....so it's either go for the non IS version or spend the bucks on this one.
...But I'm very surprised that this type of post didn't flare up immediately after the lens was released.
Also......I guess this DOES explain why this lens is a different shade of white.
Tom

[HAudidoody]

Oh my god people. Get off it. This lens is built so much better than the non IS version.

Resale? Are you kidding? Try and find one for sale! It's an outstanding lens that if you want to wait for a lower price or rebate ... you'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

Well, I'm just a bit paranoid. I've never spent more than ~$500 on a lens before. That being said, I guess I'm still going to buy it.

[timnosenzo]

:eek:

I don't think I'd keep a plastic L. I'd have to vote with my wallet that that is unacceptable in what's supposed to be pro grade optics. I know there is really good plastic available these days, but even so...
I pretty much feel the same way. Not saying its a crappy lens, I'm just disappointed that my $1100 lens is made of plastic when my $600 lens was made of metal. I felt the same way when I had my 20D about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS--that $1100 was a lot of money to spend on a plastic lens, especially when you look at a 24-70 f2.8L thats built like a brick sh1t-house.

Again, not saying its not a great lens, I had just hoped it would be metal, like all of the other L lenses that I've ever owned...

[Billginthekeys]

wow. that certainly is strange, im shocked with all the nay-sayers on this forum that no one mentioed that before. is it just the one area where the tripod mount is, or the whole shell?

[bob-e]

Please sell that plastic piece of crap to me. I will appreciate her.

[tough_dog]

Received a 70-200f4L IS from B&H a few weeks ago. I also have the non-IS version which the new lens is meant to replace. Both lenses feel equally solid with smooth controls. The IS version is a very slightly darker shade of off-white but almost the same. I've been comparing the IQ of these lenses and have concluded that my copy of the IS version is slightly sharper wide open at all focal lengths except 200mm, where both are essentially identical. The 4-stop IS is the big advantage here. I've also owned 3 different copies of the 70-200f2.8L IS and none were quite as sharp at f4 as my non-IS 70-200f4L. Also, the IQ at f2.8 was greatly reduced on all my copies vs at f4. So, the new 70-200f4L IS provides better IQ than the f2.8 IS version, weighs less than half as much, has an even better IS system and costs $600 less. The single advantage of the 2.8 IS is the one-stop faster wide-open aperture (with a noticable IQ penalty). This one-stop advantage may be essential for some, outweighing all other costs, such as for those who shoot fast-moving indoor sports. For me, the list of advantages of the f4 IS, especially superb tack-sharp IQ wide-open for the whole focal range, coupled with a fantastic IS, is a winner.

[20D_Newbie]

My response from Canon...


The exterior part is made of plastic. This was a design change over the
non IS version to help reduce weight.


Sincerely,

Jason
Technical Support Representative

Hmm....guess some people should send Jason a note and tell him he is crazy if he thinks it is plastic.

:lol:

[ScottE]

I thought that the 70-200 L (all versions) is made with a metal barrel. This is unfortunate because space age composites are stronger, lighter and more temperature stable than metal.

If you are the first to get a modern composite version, feel fortunate.

[HAudidoody]

I thought that the 70-200 L (all versions) is made with a metal barrel. This is unfortunate because space age composites are stronger, lighter and more temperature stable than metal.

If you are the first to get a modern composite version, feel fortunate.

Good Point. This lens is the 787 Dreamliner of the 70-200s. I feel better now ;)

[RedMatrixXRS]

Received a 70-200f4L IS from B&H a few weeks ago. I also have the non-IS version which the new lens is meant to replace. Both lenses feel equally solid with smooth controls. The IS version is a very slightly darker shade of off-white but almost the same. I've been comparing the IQ of these lenses and have concluded that my copy of the IS version is slightly sharper wide open at all focal lengths except 200mm, where both are essentially identical. The 4-stop IS is the big advantage here. I've also owned 3 different copies of the 70-200f2.8L IS and none were quite as sharp at f4 as my non-IS 70-200f4L. Also, the IQ at f2.8 was greatly reduced on all my copies vs at f4. So, the new 70-200f4L IS provides better IQ than the f2.8 IS version, weighs less than half as much, has an even better IS system and costs $600 less. The single advantage of the 2.8 IS is the one-stop faster wide-open aperture (with a noticable IQ penalty). This one-stop advantage may be essential for some, outweighing all other costs, such as for those who shoot fast-moving indoor sports. For me, the list of advantages of the f4 IS, especially superb tack-sharp IQ wide-open for the whole focal range, coupled with a fantastic IS, is a winner.

MY 2.8 IS is just as sharp as my f4 non-IS. maybe i have a good copy.:D

[Mortgage101]

Ok I might as well pipe in.

I own said 70-200 F4L IS. 3 things I may mention.
If that is plastic that's some heavy damn plastic. Try toting it around for an hour you might change how you feel about how "solid" it feels. (Plastic is less likely to warp and bend in temperature changes allowing for tighter and more accurate construction if it is plastic.)
B or #2 or whatever. Picture quality..plastic metal hell synthetic wax I don't care this lens takes great pictures.
#3 I suck at photography and still haven't had an issue with a blurry picture due to my unsteady and clumsy hands. Although honestly I really still am pretty sure it's a metal composite material.

[randyk]

I had the non-IS f4 and am certain it was plastic, there is a distinct difference in the material compared to the 2.8 lenses. On the other hand, the f4 is much smaller and lighter so I don't think it needs to be built to the same standard as the 2.8.

[mrclark321]

Take a look at all your lenses and I can bet that you will find some degree of plastic on all of them. :)

[jevidon]

Oh my god people. Get off it. This lens is built so much better than the non IS version.

Resale? Are you kidding? Try and find one for sale! It's an outstanding lens that if you want to wait for a lower price or rebate ... you'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

I've been going through these old archives of 70-200 f/4IS discussions because I have to trade down from my 2.8 IS version. Just wanted to reiterate the fact that cosworth's statement above still holds true today (6 months later). You aren't seeing a massive flooding of the market with unwanted f4IS because apparently they are delivering on all the promises made by Canon.

Also, I have searched posts here and elsewhere on the internet and while I have read many people moaning and whining about the plastic construction, I have yet to read any mention of the plastic barrel being cracked, damaged or exploding in the unsuspecting hands of a photographer, forcing early retirement from shooting. ;)

[mrkgoo]

Sorry to bump this, but the concept of a plastic 70-200L just blew my mind.

Note, I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that it was surprising to me. It still seems like this issue was never resolved - obviously timnosenzo has the lens and know what he's talking about, but people also seem to think there's a metal one.

I wanted to ask if they ever made two different versions of the 70-200 f4L IS - metal one, and a plastic one? That is, did they change to plastic from metal, or are ALL the IS versions plastic? And if they changed to plastic, is it just the IS version? Or are they making non-IS versions in plastic too?

Again, I don't think it's a big issue, but if it's plastic, why is it necessary to be white? I thought the white paint was to reflect light to prevent the metal from expanding and contracting with changes in temperature. If plastic doesn't do the same, there' no need for it to be white.

[timnosenzo]

Note, I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that it was surprising to me. It still seems like this issue was never resolved - obviously timnosenzo has the lens and know what he's talking about, but people also seem to think there's a metal one.

FWIW, I've owned 3 different copies of this lens, over a couple different years, and they were all the same. ;)

And when I emailed Canon, they did say that the lens was plastic:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3135313&postcount=31

[mrkgoo]

FWIW, I've owned 3 different copies of this lens, over a couple different years, and they were all the same. ;)

And when I emailed Canon, they did say that the lens was plastic:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3135313&postcount=31

Yeah, I read through this thread. Some people even said the Canon rep must be wrong if he thought it was plastic. I just don't know what to think. I might just have to go check one out myself.

[Kaigler]

Made of plastic? Not mine lol. It feels like a tank shell to me! (at least it feels that way to me)

[timnosenzo]

Made of plastic? Not mine lol.

Wanna bet? ;) :lol:

[mrkgoo]

Wanna bet? ;) :lol:

:lol:

The debate rages on.

[Poe]

The EXTERIOR is made of plastic, NOT the entire lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3135313&postcount=31

[mrkgoo]

The EXTERIOR is made of plastic, NOT the entire lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3135313&postcount=31

Well obviously. Mechanical parts will require metal, and the glass is, well, glass.

No lens is entirely metal or plastic.

[Palna]

Hi,

I sold my 70 - 200 4L IS. It was sharp - hell yes, but i didn´t get the right feeling about that lens and I was not impressed abouts it´s IQ.

I tried at the time of my buy also the 70-200 2.8 IS, and that lens is in my point of view an entirely different build quality, I liked the feeling of weight and generel quality (not optic quality) of that lens. But at that time i didn´t had the money to that buy, but If I could turn back time I should have done it anyway: -).

Now im waiting for the new model with hybrid IS: -)

Best regards

Palna

'Wanna bet? ;) :lol:

[Poe]

Well obviously. Mechanical parts will require metal, and the glass is, well, glass.

No lens is entirely metal or plastic.

No argument here. I was trying to give the already discussed facts to people who jump in on this thread and post replies like "made of plastic?...not mine!" because they failed to read the thread from the beginning!

[fotoworx]

Your cameras plastic........

[jhuntercamera]

Your cameras plastic........

That depends on the camera....

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-III-Digital-SLR-Camera-Chasis.jpg

;)

[rvdw98]

I sold my 70 - 200 4L IS. It was sharp - hell yes, but i didn´t get the right feeling about that lens and I was not impressed abouts it´s IQ.

You must be hard to please, or perhaps you had a dud.

I'm surprised that you apparently kept your 24-105 (as per your signature) but sold the 70-200/4 IS because you were not happy about its IQ. I have both, and while I wouldn't want to miss either, my 70-200's IQ is clearly a league above my 24-105's.

[Kaigler]

Wanna bet? ;) :lol:


After reading this thread I went to check and sure enough, plastic. At least the barrel sections. The focusing rings seem to be metal. Oh well. It feels pretty sturdy to me. I would have never been the wiser.

[timnosenzo]

Oh well. It feels pretty sturdy to me. I would have never been the wiser.

Yup, and it's still a great lens, IQ still smokes the vast majority of zooms out there, and it's lightweight and compact. What's to complain about? :D

[Jman13]

My lord people...lots of misinformation and lots of crazy talk in here.

First, the 70-200 f/4L IS: Main body is polycarbonate, with the zoom and focus rings made of metal (get it cold and touch the different areas...the moving rings are metal, the rest of the body is plastic). Not a big deal...it's still built very tough, and it's fully weathersealed.

Second, to the few people here who are saying "I'd never buy a plastic L": What ignorance. First, you might already own one. Second, you'd be missing out on some REALLY good glass, as the following L lenses ALL have polycarbonate bodies (I know for sure, as I've owned them all):


17-40mm f/4L
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L
135mm f/2L
70-200mm f/4L IS

I am pretty sure the 16-35 II and the 24-105L, and likely the 24 f/1.4 are also plastic bodied lenses.

[Lordedmond]

if you think that plastic is a weak/poor product, think about the Glock plastic fantastic hand gun . not that I own one . now a hand gun made of plastic gets you thinking :D

and people worry about a lens barrel I would bet that its more stable than a metal one , metal does expand bend as well , modern engineering plastics are very good products


I use a lot of plastic parts for the valve gear in the steam loco's that I build they perform better than a stainless steel part

[Saint728]

So is it just the 70-200mm f/4.0L IS and non-IS the only ones out of that line up that have the plastic body or does the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and non-IS have a plastic body as well?

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

[mrkgoo]

I had a chacne to try out the 70-200 f4L IS - yup, not metal.

That said, why is it still 'white' then? Canon said the white paint was to help reflect heat to prevent metal expansion. If it's plastic, then the white is no longer necessary.

[rvdw98]

I had a chacne to try out the 70-200 f4L IS - yup, not metal.

That said, why is it still 'white' then? Canon said the white paint was to help reflect heat to prevent metal expansion. If it's plastic, then the white is no longer necessary.

The white color protects some of the elements (the fluorite ones, if I'm not mistaken), which are more susceptible to temperature fluctuations.

[garyeaton]

My lord people...lots of misinformation and lots of crazy talk in here.

First, the 70-200 f/4L IS: Main body is polycarbonate, with the zoom and focus rings made of metal (get it cold and touch the different areas...the moving rings are metal, the rest of the body is plastic). Not a big deal...it's still built very tough, and it's fully weathersealed.

Second, to the few people here who are saying "I'd never buy a plastic L": What ignorance. First, you might already own one. Second, you'd be missing out on some REALLY good glass, as the following L lenses ALL have polycarbonate bodies (I know for sure, as I've owned them all):


17-40mm f/4L
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L
135mm f/2L
70-200mm f/4L IS

I am pretty sure the 16-35 II and the 24-105L, and likely the 24 f/1.4 are also plastic bodied lenses.


24-70mm f/42.8 L is also a plastic body

[jhuntercamera]

24-70mm f/42.8 L is also a plastic body

...and the 85 f/1.2 MkII as well. It has about 50% plastic on the exterior with the other half this rather odd hard rubber. It still reeks of quality and I don't hear too many people complaining of THAT lens's durability.

To answer the other guys question though, the 70-200 2.8 IS is in fact ALL metal. And freaking heavy as one would imagine.

[neurospeed]

EDIT: Before you read the first post and blast me for it, I posted this back in 2007, and I currently own this lens and like it, a lot. I am totally over my affliction with plastic lenses!! :)

So I just got my 70-200 f/4 IS from B&H, open it up, and I was a little surprised how cheap the lens body feels. I've had 2 of the f/4 non-IS versions and the f/2.8 non-IS and I'm pretty sure that the lens barrels were made out of metal on those, but this lens is obviously made of plastic. Has anyone else noticed this?

I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, so maybe I will change my mind once I do, but I am sort of feeling some buyers remorse here. I mean, this thing is twice the price of the non-IS version, but its built to a cheaper standard? I'm kind of feeling like for this much money I should just take the jump to the f/2.8 IS model and call it a day. :(

Am I crazy here?

I kinda felt the same way. I was going to trade my 70-200 2.8 IS for a 70-200 f4 IS + cash, but when I held the f4 IS, there was a HUGE difference is size, weight, and "feel". I decided to keep my 2.8 IS for now.