The Eagle Has Landed: Canon 70-200 f4 L IS USM

I still think the non-IS f4 is the sharpest of the siblings when peeping. No one in the world could tell the difference on most-sized prints or web-viewing though between them. As we all know, all 4 are tremendous lenses. Contrast reproduction "pops" equally well on all of them. But if we're peeping, the nod goes to the non-IS f4 IMHO. I'm a big fan of the relative size/weight though of the f4s.

does the f4 IS accept the 1.4 TC as well as the others? etc etc

I think both non-IS lenses take a TC slightly better than the IS siblings. I have the IS ones (and wouldn't give them up), but I've used and viewed countless crops at 100% of all the lenses with TCs and again the nod is to the non-IS. That said, the difference is slight and more academic than practically-relevant for most people.

I love IS.

I just posted this tonight http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/5telezooms

LightRules wrote in post #2241831
I still think the non-IS f4 is the sharpest of the siblings when peeping. No one in the world could tell the difference on most-sized prints or web-viewing though between them. As we all know, all 4 are tremendous lenses. Contrast reproduction "pops" equally well on all of them. But if we're peeping, the nod goes to the non-IS f4 IMHO. I'm a big fan of the relative size/weight though of the f4s.


I think both non-IS lenses take a TC slightly better than the IS siblings. I have the IS ones (and wouldn't give them up), but I've used and viewed countless crops at 100% of all the lenses with TCs and again the nod is to the non-IS. That said, the difference is slight and more academic than practically-relevant for most people.

I love IS.

I just posted this tonight http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/5telezooms

thanx for the response and the info! i think the non-IS takes the TC better too...but for some close-ups with the IS and TC i got some pretty amazing detail.

also, i think the IS may be sharper wide open. and maybe IQ of either lens depends on lighting...i.e., either lens can be sharper depending on the lighting situation.

i know that sounds nuts but that's what i think i see so far.

anyhow thanx again...and i will continue to test my lens

Good choice, Unstoppable...do enjoy using your lenticle.
An excellent lens which just got excellenter by the IS addition.
Alas, it is quite dear.......however, you probably being a plastic surgeon and all that, its price must be small potatoes for ya.

I also could not help noticing how opulent your lens collection has become......I am very happy for you.

Pet-Kal wrote in post #2247213
I also could not help noticing how opulent your lens collection has become

Well, Peter friend, thank you for your love; however, it is nowhere near as opuLent as yours.

Congrats on the new lens! I couldn't agree with you more about it, incredible lens!

Easily my favorite now. Simply the best IQ of any lens I've used. Price was in-line with quality, tho some may not agree.

arrgh...i'm gonna get one!

cheers....

From those shots in the test I am liking the 2.8 best and then the 100-300mm f4, and a hair between them, but reckon you are spot when you say no one could honestly tell the difference across any in a real shot on screen or printed, 70-300mm excluded which doesn't hold up in this company. The IS on the f4 would be a big advantage walkaround style and probably worth the premium in terms of keeper ratio for most people, if they can/want to stretch.

What? no Sigma 120-300 2.8?!? I'm appalled.

Tee Why wrote in post #2234790
Bit off topic, but someone was thinking about getting a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 for portraits and sports with a 2X TC for wildlife and really long distance work. This way you have a 120-300 f2.8 and a 240-600 f5.6 set up. Very versatile, but expensive and heavy too.

Pretty much a monopod lens, unless you are uniquely strong to hold it still for long amounts of time. Would do portraits nicely though. Defintely delievers nice bokeh. It takes the Canon 2x tc, fairly well from my little use with it.

Great way to save money on a 300 2.8. And makes for a good single body telephoto lens for zooming out. On 1.6 crop, its already super long. With 1.4 tc, you get super coverage without too much light loss.

grego wrote in post #2251023
Pretty much a monopod lens, unless you are uniquely strong to hold it still for long amounts of time. Would do portraits nicely though. Defintely delievers nice bokeh. It takes the Canon 2x tc, fairly well from my little use with it.

Great way to save money on a 300 2.8. And makes for a good single body telephoto lens for zooming out. On 1.6 crop, its already super long. With 1.4 tc, you get super coverage without too much light loss.

Enough talking about that lens laddie, show us your duck !

PetKal wrote in post #2253116
Enough talking about that lens laddie, show us your duck !

Don't have ducks, but I have cheerleaders, women's volleyball, etc.