70-200 f4 IS test...........

I think it looks like it is probably a great lens, just like the non-IS version. I can see times when IS could come in REALLY handy. The lens doesn't look much bigger than the original at all. It would definately work to carry around all day.

As for the 2.8 vs. IS, it really comes down to different strokes for different folks. I think the 2.8 and the f4 IS should be right around the same price so that you can choose whichever one fits your needs better, without having to figure the cost in as much. For people who shoot a lot of moving subjects, f2.8... For people that shoot more stationary/panning subjects, f4 IS.

I own the f4 on is version and love it for its size and weight... Very nice lens. However I will also purchase the 2.8 IS instead of the f4 version for the extra stop.

I've got the f/4 version, and if I chose to upgrade it would be to the IS version f/4. Its just that its MUCH easier to carry around than a 3+ pound, bulky lens.

ed rader wrote in post #2154049
again, the people who want this lens aren't trying to save money -- they want a want a smaller version of the canon flagship L zoom with 4-stop IS that can be carried all the time.

they don't want f2.8 and the extra price, weight and size that come with it.

fair price = whatever the market will bear.

if this lens doesn't sell you'll be right...but i'll bet it flies off of shelves .

and one just may land in my domke f2 .

ed rader

p.s. you'll never see a canon L zoom with IS retailing for under $1200.

Yes, I know, you have good points, I didn't buy the 2.8 just on the factor of weight.

I wish they made a 200mm f2.8 prime with IS. That'de be damn sweet. I've figured I can live with 70-200 F4L as I'll eventually have not only a 85 1.8 to cover the gap with a prime, but probably a 135 f2.0 too.