Physical size of Canon 70-200 F4 L

[IainB]

Hopefully someone can give me the dimensions (length) of this lens. My better half would like to know before she says 'yes' to letting me spend....
She's also not too keen on the white...
Ah well....

[Mchu86]

All the specs you need:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=183198&is=GREY&si=spec#goto_itemInfo

[transcend]

Since when do size and color matter?? (keep it clean guys).

Seems liek a seriously bizzare bit of criteria to take into account when selecting a camera lens.

[gcogger]

Size (and weight) matters a lot to some people, as you have to carry the thing around. I'm usually doing other things when I have the camera with me, so carting around a huge heavy lump of lens is a nuisance!

The size and colour matters with something like a 70-200L because, with this on the camera, people around you tend to become very self-conscious :)

[PekkaM]

Never mind the size, you'll get used to it. When I first saw my 70-200 f2.8 L I was terrified. Now it is my walkaround lens. Only thing is to have a large enough bag.

[charlesu]

Hopefully someone can give me the dimensions (length) of this lens. My better half would like to know before she says 'yes' to letting me spend....
She's also not too keen on the white...
Ah well....

You can pull the specs up easily but let me say that this lens is much more pleasant to carry around than the 2.8. I have both and the 4 is nice when I'm shooting my kid's baseball or something that doesn't really require the 2.8 and/or I want it to be easy to handle.

But ask yourself what you are really going to be doing with your photography. What do you need the lens? Do you need the speed? Do you need the quality? This lens is a compromise in many respects. Give it some thought.

[puttick]

The LENS is not a compromise - it is an excellent 70-200 f4 zoom, possibly the best ever made. It is not a cheap lens, though it is cheaper than the 2.8 whether IS or not. The only "compromise" is made by the user, and that depends on your needs. If you "need" f2.8 (professional sports photographer or astrophotography?) then you would be compromising with the f4 version. Otherwise nothing comes close. I would not gladly carry around the larger lens!

Nigel

[Persian-Rice]

But ask yourself what you are really going to be doing with your photography. What do you need the lens? Do you need the speed? Do you need the quality? This lens is a compromise in many respects. Give it some thought.
How did you come across the idea that this lens is a compromise?
The F/4 is the sharpest of the series, nothing very noticable, but if you want to picky, it is. In terms of build, the F/4 is built as good as any of its counterparts. Anyone who knows this group of lenses and has read several reviews will confirm this.

The only differnce is lens speed, size/weight & price. But if you think about how a lens is made, it makes sense. Larger and different elements are the cause for the extra weight and size and larger aperture, the price also reflects a design differnce, not a compromise. Finish and focusing systems are the same. The F/4 is not a compromise of the f/2.8, it's a different lens all together.

Cheers