Anyone actually got the 50mmf1.2 or 70-200f4L IS yet?

I've follwed this thread with interest - I really love my 70-200 f/4 and got to have a play on a demo IS version recently. It was great.

But the increased cost is puzzling. At Warehouse Express, our leading on-line retailer, the 70-200 f/4 costs £478 - you can do a bit better by shopping around, but reputation counts.

They have a pre-order price on the IS version of £990 - that is more than twice as much. Sure, I'm in rip-off Britain where everything costs in large amounts. But even so.....

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS costs £1249 - again, shopping around a bit can drop this a little.

I think the pricing on this is wrong - if I had to spend that much on the f/4 version, my feeling would be to save up a bit more and get the top-of t-the -line f/2.8 version, and push weights a bit or something!

As it is, I am very happy with my non-IS version, and consider my needs in this range fulfilled.

There are other L lenses out there that come higher on my list!

mxwphoto wrote in post #2150590
Looking at all those red "L"s in your sig is making my head dizzy... you are indeed a "Le Lavish Lordly Learder of a Large L Lens Lot"!

I like how you think kid. If you have any suitable bird/food related shots we'd love to see you (tho' more your shot!) over at the fascinating feathery friend/food foto fun

BTW, Simon, I have claimed back VAT/Duty/Courier charge twice from OSD. Hassle free.

steved110 wrote in post #2152542
I've follwed this thread with interest - I really love my 70-200 f/4 and got to have a play on a demo IS version recently. It was great.

But the increased cost is puzzling. At Warehouse Express, our leading on-line retailer, the 70-200 f/4 costs £478 - you can do a bit better by shopping around, but reputation counts.

They have a pre-order price on the IS version of £990 - that is more than twice as much. Sure, I'm in rip-off Britain where everything costs in large amounts. But even so.....

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS costs £1249 - again, shopping around a bit can drop this a little.

I think the pricing on this is wrong - if I had to spend that much on the f/4 version, my feeling would be to save up a bit more and get the top-of t-the -line f/2.8 version, and push weights a bit or something!

As it is, I am very happy with my non-IS version, and consider my needs in this range fulfilled.

There are other L lenses out there that come higher on my list!

The price does sound a bit steep and I would not consider it over the f2.8Lis for the little extra cost.

Forgot to mention it will be about another £80 for the tripod mount if you want one.

ed rader wrote in post #2151469
i was talking about the 70-200L F4 IS and i'm pretty sure mr. clean was too. there are only two lenses that come close to the new 70-200L (70-300s) and neither is an L.

and i believe this is the first lens with 4-stop IS. so let's see.

legendary canon 70-200L IQ. 4-stop IS. blazing fast ring USM (nothing else can touch it). weather sealing. half the weight of the f2.8 IS. ahhhh, and it's a canon L lens.

i think the guys who want this lens are willing to pay much more if need be but of course i would be willing to pay less .

ed rader

Well I aint forkin out TWITHE ATH MUTCHE an tha's fer sure!
Anyway Im saving up for a 300f2.8 so raasssp to canon that'll teach em

Petkal wrote in post #2151518
There are many people who are not too eager to get the IS, thus they will go the economy route which will still offer as good if not better optical performance.

IQ.... anyone any good at reading the projected MTF on canons site for this lens v the non IS MTF?

(I have tried to learn to read MTFs, read Luminous-landscape and others on the subject, but then when I read the comments afterwards it still doesn't make sense to me..)

Simon King wrote in post #2152948
Well I aint forkin out TWITHE ATH MUTCHE an tha's fer sure!
Anyway Im saving up for a 300f2.8 so raasssp to canon that'll teach em

You are one of a kin, Simon , no doubt !
Thus I am doubly surprised to see you succumb to that "mad lens decease" which seems to be sweeping thru the faire land of Albion, felling many a POTN member in its wake as if they were suckling (sick.) babes.

Petkal wrote in post #2151796
However, the IS version has gone a bit haywire pricewise, I must say.

I agree:p

I am following this out of acedemic interest really, (I'm a professor von capitalismus ) - I had the non IS version but just never used it - although I just might be persuaded in 3 months or more to go for the 50f1.2 if it has performance advatages over and above the fast f-stop

All te same I am dying to know what the IQ (with IS off) is like, the IS advantages will be obvious, just I'd like to know whether the IS will measur up or fall slightly behind like./ e.g. the 300mmf4 lens was said to do

ed rader wrote in post #2151891
i'm a minimalist when it comes to gear.

i own five lenses now which will probably be cut down to 3 or 4 before i ever own 6. i carry all my lenses with me when i am shooting.

there's never any guesswork to what i will need to pack.

ed rader

this is what Im trying to do, cut my kit down to the bare minimum but the BEST bare minimum, Ijust HATE carrying dead wheight

condyk wrote in post #2152551
BTW, Simon, I have claimed back VAT/Duty/Courier charge twice from OSD. Hassle free.

thanks for the thumbs up on that one Condyk - I just may dip my toe in that water

Petkal wrote in post #2152963
You are one of a kin, Simon , no doubt !
Thus I am doubly surprised to see you succumb to that "mad lens decease" which seems to be sweeping thru the faire land of Albion, felling many a POTN member in its wake as if they were suckling (sick.) babes.

I'm doubly surprised at just about everything I do - None of it makes any sense to me!

but .. 'mad lens decease' - by that you mean 'decease and desist' the buying of lenses thereof?


Interessin Q though... maybe it's not oneupmanship ( not in my case anyway) but more to do with the internal yearn to connect with light, and whatever meagre materials this world has to offer glisten like diamonds in the eye of the photographic seeker...

(Im serious! )

Simon King wrote in post #2152980
this is what Im trying to do, cut my kit down to the bare minimum but the BEST bare minimum, Ijust HATE carrying dead wheight

Because you are apparently a linguistics scholar of some stature, and a very funny lad to boot, I will share this little piece of lingo trivia with you:

What you just wrote above must be leaving the entire Roma nation in stitches due to convulsive loughter. I suppose I need not tell you what "kita" means in Roma.

Simon King wrote in post #2152992
but more to do with the internal yearn to connect with light, and whatever meagre materials this world has to offer glisten like diamonds in the eye of the photographic seeker...

(Im serious! )

Plenty of light is good when it comes to lenses, no doubt, if the light is clear and of good quality. However, much to the chagrin of the 50 f/1.0 collectors and some such, there is much more to photography than a large aperture value.
To illustrate my point, take Connie boy's modest lenticular, rather a dental speculum-like collection. His view thru those "classics" might be very dim indeed, yet his photographic vision appears quite clear.

Petkal wrote in post #2153001
[/B]

Because you are apparently a linguistics scholar of some stature, and a very funny lad to boot, I will share this little piece of lingo trivia with you:

What you just wrote above must be leaving the entire Roma nation in stitches due to convulsive loughter. I suppose I need not tell you what "kita" means in Roma.

Nope...not knowing .. what it means..?

Petkal wrote in post #2153056
Plenty of light is good when it comes to lenses, no doubt, if the light is clear and of good quality. However, much to the chagrin of the 50 f/1.0 collectors and some such, there is much more to photography than a large aperture value.
To illustrate my point, take Connie boy's modest lenticular, rather a dental speculum-like collection. His view thru those "classics" might be very dim indeed, yet his photographic vision appears quite clear.

verily verily and thrice verily, twas ever thus , yet such promise, such promise, (holds hands in head sobbing uncontrollable on deserted park bench)