Almost bought a f4 lens today

Geez I wake up today and the world's gone topsy turvy, hell froze over, I could hear the fat lady singing.... oh wait, ALMOST. Just a bad dream. Life goes on as normal.

f/4? Ahh yes... What my lenses are at stopped down.

Dorman wrote in post #2177140
Geez I wake up today and the world's gone topsy turvy, hell froze over, I could hear the fat lady singing.... oh wait, ALMOST. Just a bad dream. Life goes on as normal.

Sounds like I'm glad I don't live in your part of the world

i have to say that if i can pick one up used for $1000 or so in a few months, i will probably pick it up. i loved my old 70-200 f4 because it was light, small and SHARP. this new one seems to be all that and more with a great IS, weather seals etc...

The arguement between f4IS vs. f2.8 is really down to user preference on bokeh/DOF.

Personally I like the DOF of 2.8 vs. 4, but that's just me. Although imagining handholding 200mm f4 and using a shutter speed below 250 surely tickles my pickle too.

What I want to know, is this....is it really worth spending so much on the f4 when the f2.8 is not much more $ (although weight would be a significant factor for me)...

thats the thing though, i was all set on buying the 2.8L sometimes in the next 2 weeks or so. however, i currently have a friend's 70-200 F4 with me (he took my 100-400) and i am blown away at how light and compact it is. it is really a joy to use for as a travel lens and i imagine that with a new IS will be even sweeter. do i think that the price of the new lens is too high? you bet. however, this is very similar to the 24-105F4 IS that also costs as much and everybody loves it. at the end of the day, sometimes the convenience is worth the extra money...

Permagrin wrote in post #2177290
What I want to know, is this....is it really worth spending so much on the f4 when the f2.8 is not much more $

you've answered you're own question

Permagrin wrote in post #2177290
(although weight would be a significant factor for me)...

for me, i would take the 70-200 f4is over the f2.8 for that reason.

If weight is a concern, 2.8 is not the way to go. My Canon back pack fits all the gear (except the 70-300) that I have in my sig including my flash, some filters and two battery chargers. You hook the tripod to the bottom of it and I bet it weighs dang near 20-25 lbs. O don't fall over in the wind so it doesn't bug me, but it should be considered when considering 2.8 vs 4

Permagrin wrote in post #2177290
What I want to know, is this....is it really worth spending so much on the f4 when the f2.8 is not much more $ (although weight would be a significant factor for me)...

i'll make a bold prediction: you'll never see a canon L zoom with IS with a MSRP under $1250.

$1250 is also the MSRP of the 24-105L, which a recent poll has shown is the most popular walkaround lens by the POTN crowd.

now that we've dispensed with that we are left with a highly compact L zoom with 4-stop IS that is $500 cheaper than its porcine brother.

if you don't need f2.8 -- and i think most probably don't -- it makes much more sense to go with the compact version that concedes nothing but one f-stop and about $500 in price.

ed rader

Yes, we sold our 70-200 f/2.8 NON IS because of the weight. Now we have the 200 f/2.8 prime and the 100-400 zoom...I just can't believe how high a price they are charging for that new lens. The 50mm prime I understand but a duplicate zoom range (they have 3 others for heaven sakes)? Anyway, I was just wondering because I really like IS (and 2.8 ) and a light lens...but I'm soooo tired of shelling out tons of $ for lenses and being sorry later. (though I think I've sold everything I'm sorry for, or almost everything)

Dante King wrote in post #2175528
I went to hang at the local shop today and got to hold a new 70-200 f4 IS L. man is that thing small compared to my ex- 70-200 2.8 IS L!!! HOLY COW is it sharp! IS seems to be really nice too. All in all I almost took one home to become the mate of my other zoom, the 24-70 to be my travel pair.

Did they have any info on when the 50 L will be available?

ed rader wrote in post #2177332
i'll make a bold prediction: you'll never see a canon L zoom with IS with a MSRP under $1250.

$1250 is also the MSRP of the 24-105L, which a recent poll has shown is the most popular walkaround lens by the POTN crowd.

now that we've dispensed with that we are left with a highly compact L zoom with 4-stop IS that is $500 cheaper than its porcine brother.

if you don't need f2.8 -- and i think most probably don't -- it makes much more sense to go with the compact version that concedes nothing but one f-stop and about $500 in price.

ed rader

well said and don't foget that it even has weather seals which the 2.8 non-IS does not have (not a big deal but very nice to have if you have a 1 series body)

There really is a reason that this lens is recoemnded so highly so often.
It offers the very best aspects one can get in a zoom.. save for the f/4 vs/ f/2.8
And that sacrifice of course buys you a huge weight savings.

Whoa! The world is topsy turvey today!!! I am getting a pair of nice glass and Dante is actually looking at a lens slower than 2.8!