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

I am happy with my plain old 70-200 f/4L. I guess I will have to "suffer" with it and not get the IS version. I think if I want an IS version of this lens I will get the 2.8

the f/4 IS doesn't ship with the tripod mount, i think it is ridiculous to buy it when it is only $250 less than the 2.8 IS version if you take into consideration the double rebates, UNLESS of course weight is an issue

ggw2000 wrote in post #2183389
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

That question albeit valid is largely academic. Even the tripod mount rings for the non-IS version have not been exactly flying off the shelves.
However, I seem to remeber seeing an in-depth debate on the subject on the FM Canon Gear Forum.

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2180050
What are grits? Some kinda hybrid Canadian fuel ...

My Mom always told me to "eat your grits". When I got a bit older I learned that GRITS stands for "Girls Raised In The South" I guess my Mom knew what she was talking about all along

akhater wrote in post #2183409
the f/4 IS doesn't ship with the tripod mount, i think it is ridiculous to buy it when it is only $250 less than the 2.8 IS version if you take into consideration the double rebates, UNLESS of course weight is an issue

how did you arrive at $250?

also, if you are buying the F4 IS but really want the f2.8 IS i agree it is ridiculous.

but some of us would already have the f2.8 IS if we wanted it .

ed rader

FloridaCamera wrote in post #2183616
My Mom always told me to "eat your grits". When I got a bit older I learned that GRITS stands for "Girls Raised In The South" I guess my Mom knew what she was talking about all along

I'll buy that _ good answer. Grits are good for you.

ed rader wrote in post #2183692
how did you arrive at $250?

also, if you are buying the F4 IS but really want the f2.8 IS i agree it is ridiculous.

but some of us would already have the f2.8 IS if we wanted it .

ed rader

The day I posted this the price of the 70-200 f/4 IS was $1249 and the 2.8 IS around $1700 so difference $450, remove $100 for the tripod collar that's $350 and another $100 for double rebates and you get $250.

Of course if you can afford both lenses, the f/4 IS is great and lightweight, but I can hardly affoard one.

akhater wrote in post #2185782
The day I posted this the price of the 70-200 f/4 IS was $1249 and the 2.8 IS around $1700 so difference $450, remove $100 for the tripod collar that's $350 and another $100 for double rebates and you get $250.

Of course if you can afford both lenses, the f/4 IS is great and lightweight, but I can hardly affoard one.

ahhh...you used fuzzy math...i see .

to me buying both lenses is ridiculous unless you are a professional. get the one that works best for you and accept the compromises that come with your choice.

and like is said earlier if i wanted the f2.8 IS it would already be in my bag....except i would have a much larger bag than the one i now carry .

ed rader

then it is only logic to save money and buy the f/4 IS

akhater wrote in post #2185867
then it is only logic to save money and buy the f/4 IS

Yes and at half the weight of the monster F2.8! Just can't justify carrying around a 3 lb + lens . Gerry

Petkal wrote in post #2183471
That question albeit valid is largely academic. Even the tripod mount rings for the non-IS version have not been exactly flying off the shelves.
However, I seem to remeber seeing an in-depth debate on the subject on the FM Canon Gear Forum.

You ask a simple question and get a crooked answer . It really was just a simple ?. I already have a the non-IS F4 and the tripod ring for it. I might look at selling my current one and get the IS version. If I do then I will have to make a decision as to whether to keep the Tripod ring or not. Thus the ?. Gerry

akhater wrote in post #2185867
then it is only logic to save money and buy the f/4 IS

i stole this from another forum. i think you'll be seeing plenty of comments like this in upcoming days.

" sold my f4 and 2.8 IS a month ago to buy an f4 IS which i received on thursday. couldn't be happier."

this guy owned the f4 and the f2.8 IS. the f4 was his "travel" lens and he would only pack the f2.8 IS when he thought he might need it.

you know, the mind is a funny thing. and in order to avoid pain it will sometimes lie to you.

i'll bet there were many times that he wished he had the f2.8 IS but he had only packed the f4.

sooo...the guy had two zooms that totalled about $2400 and never got the full benefit of the $1700 model.

and now he replaced both lenses with one lightweight lens that combines the best of both lenses for $1250....and this lens will always be in his bag if not on his camera.

sounds logical to me .

ed rader

ggw2000 wrote in post #2186378
You ask a simple question and get a crooked answer . It really was just a simple ?. I already have a the non-IS F4 and the tripod ring for it. I might look at selling my current one and get the IS version. If I do then I will have to make a decision as to whether to keep the Tripod ring or not. Thus the ?. Gerry

a lot of folks have the same question and maybe today i'll mosey into san jose camera and see if i can get an answer.

the main reason i want the IS version is so that i'll never need a tripod or monopod...but that's just me.

btw, i am in the market for a lightweight tripod that'll hold 5 lbs or so to use for landscapes. where is the best place to research tripods and maybe read some reviews?

sorry to get off track but i need to start doing my wife's xmas shopping .

ed rader

akhater wrote in post #2185782
The day I posted this the price of the 70-200 f/4 IS was $1249 and the 2.8 IS around $1700 so difference $450, remove $100 for the tripod collar that's $350 and another $100 for double rebates and you get $250.

Of course if you can afford both lenses, the f/4 IS is great and lightweight, but I can hardly affoard one.

You could probably get the 2.8IS for around 1615-1620 area(including shipping) from B&H using the psaug code.

So you can actually save a tad more.

ed rader wrote in post #2186422
the main reason i want the IS version is so that i'll never need a tripod or monopod...but that's just me.

sorry to get off track but i need to start doing my wife's xmas shopping .

ed rader

You are one funny guy, Ed.