Will the price of the 70-200 2.8 IS USM drop if ?

For my purposes the f/4 IS is of no use to me, but the 2.8 IS is on my shopping list. This is no slight on the f/4 but I have a 100-400L IS which I use for all my 'bird & critter' shots, amongst other things. The IS is great for cancelling camera shake, but in low light I find myself using shutter speeds which, whilst not suffering from camera shake, do suffer from blur where the critter has moved it' s head or whatever.

When this happens, IS, tripods whatever are of no use as it is subject movement that is the problem. The 2.8, however, will allow me that little extra shutter speed which will make a big difference to sharpness. I will have to live with the shorter length (I can't afford a 400mm f2.8) but it will be enough with zoo photography etc.

The f/4 would almost be duplicating what I already have in the 100-400L. I see these two lenses having different target buyers, those who need the speed and are prepared to pay for it will pick the 2.8 regardless.

ed rader wrote in post #1997466
but don't you own the 70-200L f4?

ed rader

Unfortunately, I do, although I just ordered Sigma's f/2.8 counterpart to deal with all the low light shooting I do for yearbook and newspaper. The f/4 just doesn't get it for all the low light shooting I do, IS or not.

liza wrote in post #1998167
Unfortunately, I do, although I just ordered Sigma's f/2.8 counterpart to deal with all the low light shooting I do for yearbook and newspaper. The f/4 just doesn't get it for all the low light shooting I do, IS or not.

if you need f2.8 you need it. but i'll bet plenty of folks bought the f2.8 because it was the only L zoom with IS in this range and many of those folks while loving the lens hate the weight and size.

gotta love canon for giving us another option !

ed rader

sandpiper wrote in post #1998140
For my purposes the f/4 IS is of no use to me, but the 2.8 IS is on my shopping list. This is no slight on the f/4 but I have a 100-400L IS which I use for all my 'bird & critter' shots, amongst other things. The IS is great for cancelling camera shake, but in low light I find myself using shutter speeds which, whilst not suffering from camera shake, do suffer from blur where the critter has moved it' s head or whatever.

When this happens, IS, tripods whatever are of no use as it is subject movement that is the problem. The 2.8, however, will allow me that little extra shutter speed which will make a big difference to sharpness. I will have to live with the shorter length (I can't afford a 400mm f2.8) but it will be enough with zoo photography etc.

The f/4 would almost be duplicating what I already have in the 100-400L. I see these two lenses having different target buyers, those who need the speed and are prepared to pay for it will pick the 2.8 regardless.

sounds like you are willing to shell out the big bucks again for another compromise lens. i'd save up for he lens i really wanted .

i think people who compromised and bought the 100-400 but really needed a shorter, much more compact lens will be attracted to the 70-200L f4 IS, which is yet another great lens from canon .

ed rader

There isn't a thing about the 70-200mm f/4 IS that interests me. My f/2.8 version (non-IS) is a workhorse, and produces fabulous results.

I don't think the release of the f/4 IS version will have any real impact on either of the f/2.8 versions...

ed rader wrote in post #1998263
sounds like you are willing to shell out the big bucks again for another compromise lens. i'd save up for he lens i really wanted .

ed rader

Errm, the 100-400L actually IS the lens I really wanted, that's why I bought it. I use it more than any of my other lenses and I love it. A long prime is of limited use to me as I need varying focal lengths for much of what I use this lens for. The only thing I would like to improve on, is the max aperture, hence my comment about wanting a 70-200 f2.8L as well.

Yes, I could find use for a 400 f2.8 but not enough to make me even consider it at over £5,000.

You call the 100-400L and 70-200L 2.8 'compromise' lenses, I call them versatile. I agree that they aren't as dedicated to a task as a long prime for example, but that isn't versatile enough for me as I shoot a wide range of subjects. If I was a dedicated wild bird photographer, a long prime would be on my shopping list, however as an occasional bird photographer the 100-400L does the job most of the time, but can also be used for other things.

These lenses may not suit your requirements, but telling me that I am buying the wrong lens and to save up for 'the one I really want', without knowing what I need from my lenses I find a little patronising. I have carefully considered every lens / camera I have ever purchased and never bought anything that has disappointed me. If I was just buying my first digital outfit tomorrow, I would still have the 100-400L at the top of the shopping list.

sandpiper wrote in post #1998523
Errm, the 100-400L actually IS the lens I really wanted, that's why I bought it. I use it more than any of my other lenses and I love it. A long prime is of limited use to me as I need varying focal lengths for much of what I use this lens for. The only thing I would like to improve on, is the max aperture, hence my comment about wanting a 70-200 f2.8L as well.

Yes, I could find use for a 400 f2.8 but not enough to make me even consider it at over £5,000.

You call the 100-400L and 70-200L 2.8 'compromise' lenses, I call them versatile. I agree that they aren't as dedicated to a task as a long prime for example, but that isn't versatile enough for me as I shoot a wide range of subjects. If I was a dedicated wild bird photographer, a long prime would be on my shopping list, however as an occasional bird photographer the 100-400L does the job most of the time, but can also be used for other things.

These lenses may not suit your requirements, but telling me that I am buying the wrong lens and to save up for 'the one I really want', without knowing what I need from my lenses I find a little patronising. I have carefully considered every lens / camera I have ever purchased and never bought anything that has disappointed me. If I was just buying my first digital outfit tomorrow, I would still have the 100-400L at the top of the shopping list.

no you were the one who said the 70-200 was too short but you would buy it. i really don't care what you buy to be honest....as long as i'm not paying .

a lot of folks are expending lots of energy explaining why THEY don't need the 70-200f4 IS and if the past is any indication that means this will be a wildly popular lens .

sorry if i offended you in any way!

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #1998555
no you were the one who said the 70-200 was too short but you would buy it. i really don't care what you buy to be honest....as long as i'm not paying .


ed rader

Yes, I said that it was shorter than the 100-400L but that I would live with that. The only reason I want this lens is for the odd occasion when the 100-400L doesn't quite give me a fast enough shutter speed at f4. In this instance, it would be nice to have a faster lens to give me a touch more speed.

The amount of times that the light will be just dull enough, but not too dull, for this to work will be very limited. It's only one stop difference after all, and in failing light will not offer me many opportunities before the shutter speed again drops too low.

I am having enough trouble justifying spending £1300 on a lens that will be used in such limited circumstances, where I actually need f2.8 rather than f4. The only reason for purchase is that it is the longest f2.8 I can vaguely justify the cost for. To go longer, I would need the 300mm f2.8L, which costs over £3,000, a sum I cannot justify for such occasional use. Also the 300 would sometimes be too long and won't zoom out, it also weighs over a kg more than the 70-200, a big consideration when it comes to carrying it around all day just in case the light levels mean it will be useful for a short period of time.

I know that the 70-200 is a 'compromise', but that is what I need, versatility. My car is a compromise too, I could use an estate (station wagon) as I often have stuff to cart around, I would like a fast sports car but can't get enough in it. I actually bought a medium size 'sportshatch' which carries a reasonable amount of stuff at 135 mph. Neither a sports car or an estate, but it does what I need and is reasonably fast.

If I win the lottery I will buy a dozen new lenses to do specific jobs, I will also have a stable of cars to do different tasks. Until that day however, compromises / versatility are the order of the day.

Trust me, the 70-200L IS is the lens that I want, along with the MP-E 65mm macro with ringflash and the new 24-105L, that I have just ordered to replace my 28-135 IS. I can purchase all three of these for the price of the one less 'compromised' lens you would have me save up for. I know which way I would get most use out of the £3,000.

sandpiper wrote in post #1998828
Yes, I said that it was shorter than the 100-400L but that I would live with that. The only reason I want this lens is for the odd occasion when the 100-400L doesn't quite give me a fast enough shutter speed at f4. In this instance, it would be nice to have a faster lens to give me a touch more speed.

The amount of times that the light will be just dull enough, but not too dull, for this to work will be very limited. It's only one stop difference after all, and in failing light will not offer me many opportunities before the shutter speed again drops too low.

I am having enough trouble justifying spending £1300 on a lens that will be used in such limited circumstances, where I actually need f2.8 rather than f4. The only reason for purchase is that it is the longest f2.8 I can vaguely justify the cost for. To go longer, I would need the 300mm f2.8L, which costs over £3,000, a sum I cannot justify for such occasional use. Also the 300 would sometimes be too long and won't zoom out, it also weighs over a kg more than the 70-200, a big consideration when it comes to carrying it around all day just in case the light levels mean it will be useful for a short period of time.

I know that the 70-200 is a 'compromise', but that is what I need, versatility. My car is a compromise too, I could use an estate (station wagon) as I often have stuff to cart around, I would like a fast sports car but can't get enough in it. I actually bought a medium size 'sportshatch' which carries a reasonable amount of stuff at 135 mph. Neither a sports car or an estate, but it does what I need and is reasonably fast.

If I win the lottery I will buy a dozen new lenses to do specific jobs, I will also have a stable of cars to do different tasks. Until that day however, compromises / versatility are the order of the day.

Trust me, the 70-200L IS is the lens that I want, along with the MP-E 65mm macro with ringflash and the new 24-105L, that I have just ordered to replace my 28-135 IS. I can purchase all three of these for the price of the one less 'compromised' lens you would have me save up for. I know which way I would get most use out of the £3,000.

hey...i believe in a minimum of equipment too. i have five lenses and i'd really like to have one or two less.

if a lens is for a specific purpose it better be something i do frequently or i won't keep it.

my style is more PJ than anything so i carry all my kit, and therefore i prefer a lighter more versatile set-up that covers the normal range.

some things i'll compromise on but not other --e.g., portraits.

if i were to sell my 70-200L the two lenses i would consider would be the 70-200f4 IS or the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS. if the F2.8 weren't as sharp as the f4 @ f4 i would not buy it.

i would not be able to justify a much larger lens if it were not fully useable wide open. the 70-200f4 is more useable wide open than any lens i have ever used.

good luck!

ed rader