Almost bought a f4 lens today

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

Ed, I don't think 2.8 vs. 4 is a need, I think it's more of a want. The differences are subtle but to each his own! Hell I don't need 2.8 but I want it! I'd rather use 2.8 at ISO 800 then f4 at ISO 1600. Just a personal preference. Later on I might change my mind. The 24-105, 70-200, 100-400 (the IS versions) is a tough combo to beat.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2177418
I'd rather use 2.8 at ISO 800 then f4 at ISO 1600.

With the new gen IS, you can use f4 at ISO 200 and still get sharp pics

I personally think if you do indoor sports, then 2.8 is essential, for anything else, the f4 IS is the one. As someone said, the ability to handhold down below 1/250 or heck 1/125 is really nice.

Both my Ls are f/4

I guess it depends on what youre shooting too. For me, I dont think id benefit from IS very much, as I plan on doing a lot of motorsports shooting. I dont know, Maybe im mistaken...

:shrugs:

I would think that IS would benefit EVERY shot. 1/200 is about good enough to shot some panning motorsports, but for me 1/200 on 200mm is not quite fast enough. One would assume that IS would take the "what if" part of shutter speed and camera shake out of the picture.
And good point 4x4!

4x4rock wrote in post #2177705
With the new gen IS, you can use f4 at ISO 200 and still get sharp pics

I personally think if you do indoor sports, then 2.8 is essential, for anything else, the f4 IS is the one. As someone said, the ability to handhold down below 1/250 or heck 1/125 is really nice.

Yes, sharp pics rather than handshake, but you still don't get as much shutter speed. There's where the advantage to bigger f-stops come in play, in low light, if you are tryping to stop motion.

But at least in the photo world, there are millions of options for every individual.

I never missed having IS on my 70-200 f/4, because I didn't own any lenses with IS. Now that I've got the 100-400L, I can see the point and (as I wrote on another post) can also see why the 70-200 f/4IS is going to be a huge success.

This is probably going to be one of canon's most popular lenses - regardless of the price. I didn't get a 70-200 f/2.8 initially because the lens was so huge. In order to get the focal length I wanted though, I was forced to get a huge lens - the 100-400L. I absolutely love this lens, but compared to the 70-200 f/4, its a monster.

One monster is enough, for me, at this point. If I ever upgrade my 70-200 f/4L it'll be for the IS version, not the 2.8. The difference in handling of a 3+ pound lens versus a light lens is substantial. And now that I finally "get" IS, I'd definately want it on any future telephoto.

Grego has it right on.
it really is the higher shutter speeds that are required for some low light work.
sure the very clever new " IS " works wonders at allowing sharp hand held shots at much longer exposure times, but thats of no use at all if you then capture subject movement which is not wanted ie. Stage work etc..

also try fiting a 2 x extender to this f4 lens, suddenly whether you are working at 70mm or at the long end 200mm you are faced with f8. so lens becomes 140mm to 400mm f8. on a full frame.
not really much use in my view.
now if needed for travelling with light weight kit a real advantage for sure.
finally there is not so great a difference in the price right now , go with the 2.8 version or use a 200mm L 2.8 which is quite supperb and compact and half the cost.

finally many people assume we need a continuous range in mm to get a full set of kit this is often very expensive and unecessary.

martin

I really love the 70-200 f/4, and the IS option simply makes a great lens even better.

the cost is an issue for me - it's out of reach for now, and I've already got the older lens anyway - but the weight issue is significant for some people - I'm one of them- who would prefer not to haul a massive lens around all day.

If you can afford the IS option, and don't need/ wnat f/2.8 then this lens has everything going. but I do think it is over priced ( for my pocket anyway.... )

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.

HAHA!

mebailey wrote in post #2177366
Did they have any info on when the 50 L will be available?

Waiting. Today is canon days at my local shop. My local shop has the new 70-200s in stock. Rep does not have a 70-200 f/slow IS or the 50L #($(^@$%&#%$&#%^*&

I am told soon....WTF does soon mean??

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2177865
I would think that IS would benefit EVERY shot.

Actually IS only improves stationary subjects. IS does not stopm targets in motion.

Dante King wrote in post #2182681
Actually IS only improves stationary subjects. IS does not stopm targets in motion.

actually, IS improves camera movement, which takes place every time you take a picture without tripod.

ed rader

I think that I should buy one of these for my wife.

One other benefit to the IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms is that they're weathersealed. The non-IS aren't.