Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens Review

creamcorn wrote in post #2213364
I have the 100-400mm....at 400mm you need IS at 200mm you don't. And f/4 IS isn't going to get you night sports.

i think a lot of guys would disagree with your take on IS. i know i disagree with you.

or else canon has committed a serious blunder by making the 17-55, 17-85, 28-135, 24-105L, 70-200L f2.8 and f4 IS, which are some of canon's best selling lenses.

and who shoots night sports? because you do you assume i do?

i bought this lens because it was exactly what i wanted and i paid cold, hard cash .

ed rader

To creamcorn, I've got prints hanging on my wall taken at 1/3 of a second with my 17-85, don't tell me that IS isn't needed at shorter focal lengths.

crn3371 wrote in post #2213382
Ed, you know you want it. As one of the biggest advocates for the original 70-200 f4, how can you pass up those optics, same size, and 3-4 stops of IS ? If it wasn't for the fact that I'm lusting for the 100-400, I'd seriously be considering the upgrade myself. Buy it and give us the real world review.

okay buddy....we go duck hunting in the morning .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2213392
i think a lot of guys would disagree with your take on IS. i know i disagree with you.

or else canon has committed a serious blunder by making the 17-55, 17-85, 28-135, 24-105L, 70-200L f2.8 and f4 IS, which are some of canon's best selling lenses.

and who shoots night sports? because you do you assume i do?

i bought this lens because it was exactly what i wanted and i paid cold, hard cash .

ed rader

I don't shoot night sports ...
I haven't tried the 24-105, but If I had the choice between the 24-70mm "L" and the 24-105mm "L"....hmmm

creamcorn wrote in post #2213415
I don't shoot night sports ...
I haven't tried the 24-105, but If I had the choice between the 24-70mm "L" and the 24-105mm "L"....hmmm

i have the choice and i have owned both but what that has to do with the 70-200L f4 IS currently in my possession is anyone's guess .

ed rader

cjm wrote in post #2213171
Don't do it Ed. Buy the 24-70 IS L instead

wait, there's an IS version of the chubby 24-70L?

Alright enough of this jibba jabba, I know it's nighttime Ed but we need shots baby, shots!

ed rader wrote in post #2213443
i have the choice and i have owned both but what that has to do with the 70-200L f4 IS currently in my possession is anyone's guess .

ed rader

You threw out different IS lenses and threw me off topic....I'm sure the 70-200 f/4 IS is amazing.

here's the closest thing i can find to a duck tonight. my cat horton @ f4, iso 400, 100mm, 1/20th sec.

ed rader

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

Hey, looks good and sharp, lots of detail, good color/contrast, and all at 1/20th of a second, nice! Your cat looks like a real bruiser as well, he'd have my kitten Bruce for lunch!

Dorman wrote in post #2213522
Hey, looks good and sharp, lots of detail, good color/contrast, and all at 1/20th of a second, nice! Your cat looks like a real bruiser as well, he'd have my kitten Bruce for lunch!

it's a quick and dirty shot of horton perched on the back of the couch . you pretty much have to accept the pose that he gives you .

ed rader

Looks razor sharp to me ed, especially @ 1/20 second. I must refrain myself from this one ...

tripod or handheld ED?

creamcorn wrote in post #2213945
tripod or handheld ED?

handheld. i don't even own a tripod ... yet .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2213991
handheld. i don't even own a tripod ... yet .

ed rader

Looks real sharp! Looks like the new IS might be a worthy upgrade...I want to get a new lens(I don't like saving money :rolleyes, and was debating between 135mm 2.0 "L", 200mm 2.8 "L", 70-200mm 2.8, or 500mm FD "L"w/converter etc....now you got me thinking f/4 IS. My only thing is, I have the 100-400mm, and don't like over lapping lenses especially expensive ones. I should just save for a 2.8 tank