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

ed rader wrote in post #2186422
sorry to get off track but i need to start doing my wife's xmas shopping .

Great excuse for all those bra's and panties in your sock drawer Ed

condyk wrote in post #2186456
Great excuse for all those bra's and panties in your sock drawer Ed

Thank you for elaborating fully on my thoughts......for Ed's benefit, obviously.

condyk wrote in post #2186456
Great excuse for all those bra's and panties in your sock drawer Ed

you mean ear muffs and ski masks don't cha ?

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2186395
" sold my f4 and 2.8 IS a month ago to buy an f4 IS which i received on thursday. couldn't be happier."

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

Sounds logical to me too. I'm in the middle of the great 70-200 F/4 Vs. F/2.8 battle myself, neither will be IS but the same situation applies. I'm sure if I went for the F/4 there would be some occassions I'd wish I had the 2.8, but I'm thinking that more often than not I'd be glad I had a smaller lens with half the weight that I'd actually take with me everywhere over the speed...

ed rader wrote in post #2186395
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

wait.. *feeble thought process trying to catch up*

So you're saying, better to get the f/4L IS even though it is ridiculously expensive?

Lightstream wrote in post #2187400
wait.. *feeble thought process trying to catch up*

So you're saying, better to get the f/4L IS even though it is ridiculously expensive?

I don't think its ridiculously expensive, just maybe a bit too expensive. If you combine the utility of being able to shoot at slow shutter speeds along with the light weight and lack of bulk this lens offers (at least compared to the 3 lb f/2.8) then maybe its worth the bucks(~$400 less than the f/2.8). I think it will be worth it for many folks and I think it will be a big success for canon.

condyk wrote in post #2186456
Great excuse for all those bra's and panties in your sock drawer Ed

How does he explain the fact that the cup size is not his wife's

JNunn wrote in post #2190965
I don't think its ridiculously expensive, just maybe a bit too expensive. If you combine the utility of being able to shoot at slow shutter speeds along with the light weight and lack of bulk this lens offers (at least compared to the 3 lb f/2.8) then maybe its worth the bucks(~$400 less than the f/2.8). I think it will be worth it for many folks and I think it will be a big success for canon.

You see, I have this superb 70-300 IS USM piece of glass for $550 that is making the L look bad more reach, just a hair less speed, less than half the cost, same featherweight (635gm) size. I lose FTM, full ring USM (it has micro, although a pretty DANG fast micro, and I don't see people **** about the 50/1.4's micro), weather sealing, internal focus and internal zoom. I wonder if all of that are worth the extra price. Tough call!

The 70-300 even disturbs my 300 f/4L's sleep because it comes so dangerously close in performance! Note, this 70-300 is not to be confused with the older 75-300 series which really couldn't get it up.

Wilt wrote in post #2191045
How does he explain the fact that the cup size is not his wife's

hey....my wife doesn't wear a cup !

ed rader

Lightstream wrote in post #2192739
You see, I have this superb 70-300 IS USM piece of glass for $550 that is making the L look bad more reach, just a hair less speed, less than half the cost, same featherweight (635gm) size. I lose FTM, full ring USM (it has micro, although a pretty DANG fast micro, and I don't see people **** about the 50/1.4's micro), weather sealing, internal focus and internal zoom. I wonder if all of that are worth the extra price. Tough call!

The 70-300 even disturbs my 300 f/4L's sleep because it comes so dangerously close in performance! Note, this 70-300 is not to be confused with the older 75-300 series which really couldn't get it up.

now that's an overpriced lens, imo. i wouldn't own a lens that doesn't have ring USM .

ed rader

Lightstream wrote in post #2187400
wait.. *feeble thought process trying to catch up*

So you're saying, better to get the f/4L IS even though it is ridiculously expensive?

i don't believe canon will ever sell an L zoom with IS for under $1250.

canon makes consumer lenses for cost conscious photographers and there's always the third parties if you are willing to accept compromises .

ed rader

I only own a 70-200 non IS, But ive used IS many of times, and I feel it to be an extreamly useful feature.

Im a firm beliver that IS can be the difference beteween getting the shot, and going home with crap. Unless you shoot action/sports, then IS is kinda pointless, you just need fast apature lenses.