If Canon made this 105-200 f/4 IS lens would you buy it?

themadman wrote in post #14675396
Too big and too much money? Costs about the same as a 24-105 f4 IS... doesn't weigh much more... as for white... get a lens coat.

Well, you can often find the 24-105 used for as little as $750. Can't find the 70-200 f/4 IS for that price. Probably because no one will let one go! I know it's that good. But I have the f/2.8 version and I'd never be able to convince myself to have one of the f/4 versions also. I do not like the way the white lens attracts a crowd (or a thief) in non-pro situations. I also have to believe the price would be closer to $750 or $800 for the 105 to 200 f/4 but maybe that's too naive. It can't cost as much as the $1,250 we'd pay for the 70-200 f/4 IS.

I dunno what a 105-200 would weigh. I'm in my lab right now working on that...

I know plenty of people like the overlap from their 24-105 and their 70-200 whether the latter is 2.8 or 4. But, call me crazy, I'd like the lack of overlap in the 24-104 and 105-200 duo. Same reason they did the 24-70 and 70-200.

i'd prefer:

a black 70-200 f/4 IS
or any color 50-200 f/4 IS

I for one, would love to see Canon make a 200ish-500mm f/5.6 IS... That would be awesome. Especially if they can make it for $2000ish or so.

Eastport wrote in post #14675453
Well, you can often find the 24-105 used for as little as $750. Can't find the 70-200 f/4 IS for that price. Probably because no one will let one go! I know it's that good. But I have the f/2.8 version and I'd never be able to convince myself to have one of the f/4 versions also. I do not like the way the white lens attracts a crowd (or a thief) in non-pro situations. I also have to believe the price would be closer to $750 or $800 for the 105 to 200 f/4 but maybe that's too naive. It can't cost as much as the $1,250 we'd pay for the 70-200 f/4 IS.

I dunno what a 105-200 would weigh. I'm in my lab right now working on that...

I know plenty of people like the overlap from their 24-105 and their 70-200 whether the latter is 2.8 or 4. But, call me crazy, I'd like the lack of overlap in the 24-104 and 105-200 duo. Same reason they did the 24-70 and 70-200.

I'd bet you it would be $1500 or more. Canon doesn't charge less for new lenses( the 40/2.8 pancake being the exception)..especially L series.

Canon won't make a black long zoom, it is marketing and they claim that it makes them cooler in the sun and they perform better.

Just limiting the focal length won't somehow make a lens shorter, lighter, or cheaper...and if you want f/4 at 200mm, it is going to be the same size as the 70-200 f/4 probably. This focal length is so well covered by so many lenses I just don't see the need...what about the 70-300 IS USM? It is black, lighter, and cheaper.

Invertalon wrote in post #14675501
I for one, would love to see Canon make a 200ish-500mm f/5.6 IS... That would be awesome. Especially if they can make it for $2000ish or so.

They ARE making one (200-400L IS), but it's most likely going to be closer to $7000 when it finally hits.


OP: No, I wouldn't buy it, and I doubt very many people would. Even if they made it, it wouldn't be much, if any, less than the 70-200 f/4 IS and it would hardly be smaller. The f/4 is already crazy small for a telephoto of that length.

A 200-400 f/4 IS is not the same as a 250-500 f/5.6 IS... The latter would have longer range, be slower (less weight) and hopefully much cheaper.

OK. So let's say your only lens is the 24-105. Would you at least give some thought to buying the 105-200 f/4 IS rather than the 70-200 f/4 IS if it cost at least $200 less than the 70-200 f/4 IS? And assuming the 105-200 is black?

Regarding the length, no it would not have to be as long as the 70-200 series. The barrel would just extend like the 24-105 and like the 70-300 (non-L) IS.

Simple answer "NO" because
1. 70-200 f/4.0 is giving you an additional 35mm wide end.
2. every time canon create a new version, its almost twice as much as the older version, and I would say if they create one, it would be something close to $2,000.

Invertalon wrote in post #14675692
A 200-400 f/4 IS is not the same as a 250-500 f/5.6 IS... The latter would have longer range, be slower (less weight) and hopefully much cheaper.

I think just a 500/5.6 IS L prime would sell a ton if priced under $2k

The length and width of telephoto lenses is typically related to the "long" focal length and max. aperture. So IMHO a 100-200 f4 will be about the same length and width of the current 70-200 f4. And a 2x zoom ratio for a telephoto zoom will be rather unimpressive compared to competing products already available.

I agree that a black color option would be nice (esp. for my 70-300L, which has no flourite and would seem to be white purely for marketing purposes). That said, the 70-200 f4 IS is definitely the lens you are looking for.

FEChariot wrote in post #14675306
Now a Canon 100-300/4 IS could temp me.

Now you're talking. But I suspect the price of a 100-300 f4L IS would make me cry a little bit. It would likely be bigger and more expensive than the 70-200 2.8L II. I still think about the discontinued Sigma 100-300 f4 from time to time ...

Invertalon wrote in post #14675692
A 200-400 f/4 IS is not the same as a 250-500 f/5.6 IS... The latter would have longer range, be slower (less weight) and hopefully much cheaper.

It has a built-in 1.4 tc; giving you a 280-500 f/5.6. The thing's frackin huge.

Given the size/weight of the other lenses out there that cover those sorts of focal lengths, I just don't see a good, quality 200-500 being a small lens, no matter what. Even the old Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 isn't tiny; the Nikon 200-400 is huge and expensive; the Sigma 150-500/50-500s are large, bulky and somewhat pricey, as well. <shrug>

Eastport wrote in post #14675747
Regarding the length, no it would not have to be as long as the 70-200 series. The barrel would just extend like the 24-105 and like the 70-300 (non-L) IS.

Unrelated to your original question, but the 70-300L actually does extend while it zooms.

jrbdmb wrote in post #14675794
The length and width of telephoto lenses is typically related to the "long" focal length and max. aperture. So IMHO a 100-200 f4 will be about the same length and width of the current 70-200 f4. And a 2x zoom ratio for a telephoto zoom will be rather unimpressive compared to competing products already available.

I agree that a black color option would be nice (esp. for my 70-300L, which has no flourite and would seem to be white purely for marketing purposes). That said, the 70-200 f4 IS is definitely the lens you are looking for.

Now you're talking. But I suspect the price of a 100-300 f4L IS would make me cry a little bit. It would likely be bigger and more expensive than the 70-200 2.8L II.

All the 70-200 f/4 IS offers over the 2.8 IS version I already have is that's it lighter. And I don't want both. And while it's a superb lens (the f/4 IS) none of its drawbacks from the 2.8 version are of use to me. Now, if it was smaller and lighter and fit in my camera bag easier (shorter) and not as noticeable but still an L...

The 70-300 is not an L. And the L version is white, heavy, expensive and I don't need the extra length of 200-300. And the 105-200 with its L quality and extended barrel would be a nice small kit when paired with the 105-200.

But I hear all of you. Makes me think of a Americana rock group I follow, Delta Rae, who has a new song called "Is there anyone out there?"

Have you actually put them side by side? The f/4 is NOTABLY smaller and narrower, as well as lighter than the 2.8...