EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM Hits Streets.

B&H apparently has had the new lens in stock a few days now. On another forum some folks say they have got it already, and they offer a largely positive albeit not detailed feedback on the lens.
I am curious about the 'depth' of IS effectiveness. Also, a comparison of IQ between the IS and non-IS versions. No doubt, there will be plenty of that stuff in the very near future.

Has anyone on POTN got the lens ? Any comments so far ?

I got a 70-200 f/4L It'S got USM ... does that count ...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

No idea....however, I'd venture a guess that south of 601 the only thing that counts is having a pickup truck seat under your a$$ and some grits in it.

What are grits? Some kinda hybrid Canadian fuel ...

It's coughing up the money that's the hard part. I still think I should be going for broke - go big or go home - 70-200/2.8 ISL.

Lightstream wrote in post #2181343
It's coughing up the money that's the hard part. I still think I should be going for broke - go big or go home - 70-200/2.8 ISL.

If you have a steady and strong handhold like a real man, you do not need it.
If you do not plan on using it in low light at speeds <1/100 sec, ditto.
If you are thrifty, ditto.
If you do not mind schlepping a pod, ditto.

If you wanna have f/2.8, then the non-IS version is the perfect lens for ya.

She looks to be a real gem. I intend to have her.

LightRules wrote in post #2181545
She looks to be a real gem. I intend to have her.

You must be a very romantic yet determined lover, Jo. "Unstoppable" indeed, as I like to call ya.

You know, I still can not get over your avatar........that's truly better than good ! Please, oh please do not change it, at least not for a while.

You must be a very romantic yet determined lover, Jo. "Unstoppable" indeed, as I like to call ya.

Yes, my wife can't get over me.

You know, I still can not get over your avatar........that's truly better than goo ! Please, oh please do not change it, at least not for a while.

Old friend, your wish is my command. But what gets me is that you seem to really think that isn't me.

LightRules wrote in post #2181672
But what gets me is that you seem to really think that isn't me.

Ok then, I'll take your word for it.......that's you.

Petkal wrote in post #2181401
If you have a steady and strong handhold like a real man, you do not need it.
If you do not plan on using it in low light at speeds <1/100 sec, ditto.
If you are thrifty, ditto.
If you do not mind schlepping a pod, ditto.

If you wanna have f/2.8, then the non-IS version is the perfect lens for ya.

*kicks self in nuts* OW!!!!

OK, now that my voice has risen two octaves and I sound like the ghurl-men...

*whining chick mode on*

"But Petkal...... it's soooooooo shiny"

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Lightstream wrote in post #2181343
It's coughing up the money that's the hard part. I still think I should be going for broke - go big or go home - 70-200/2.8 ISL.

I'd say go for the 2.8 IS. A gem of a lens. Save a couple hundred more. Probably under your couches

grego wrote in post #2182899
I'd say go for the 2.8 IS. A gem of a lens. Save a couple hundred more. Probably under your couches

My couch is no goldmine though!!

Lightstream wrote in post #2182911


My couch is no goldmine though!!

Just limit what you buy for food for a month or two!!

Just went to the canon site to see if the "tripod" mount is the same for the Regular F4 and the F4 IS. No info there on the tripod mount for the IS version . Anyone know the answer? Thanks, Gerry