Just received my 70-200 f/4 IS... maybe a little disappointed?

EDIT: Before you read the first post and blast me for it, I posted this back in 2007, and I currently own this lens and like it, a lot. I am totally over my affliction with plastic lenses!!

So I just got my 70-200 f/4 IS from B&H, open it up, and I was a little surprised how cheap the lens body feels. I've had 2 of the f/4 non-IS versions and the f/2.8 non-IS and I'm pretty sure that the lens barrels were made out of metal on those, but this lens is obviously made of plastic. Has anyone else noticed this?

I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, so maybe I will change my mind once I do, but I am sort of feeling some buyers remorse here. I mean, this thing is twice the price of the non-IS version, but its built to a cheaper standard? I'm kind of feeling like for this much money I should just take the jump to the f/2.8 IS model and call it a day.

Am I crazy here?

What is the weight like on the f4 IS? I found the f2.8 IS very heavy especially used on an all day wedding. The IS on the 2.8 is superb, whats it like on the f4 ?

I just ordered one of these as well, expected delivery is tomorrow. I had only seen one other post mentioning the build quality of this lens so didn't think it would be an issue...maybe this has something to do with why the 70-200 f/4 IS is a different shade of white than the other "L"s??

You live in Connecticut, of course you're crazy!

I've never handled any of the other 70-200's but my F4 (IS) feels quite wonderful; heavy, solid, and smooth. Is the only thing that bothers you about it the 'plasticy feel' of the barrel? Stop touching the barrel and start touching the focus/zoom rings.

In other words, get out there and get some shots in. Then decide if you like it or not compared to the others that you've handled.

>edit to add that it's an IS<

I have both the f4's and both feel pretty much the same in terms of build and weight. They are both made of the same stuff so you must be mistaken.

I agree with flippinfleck - judge the lens once you've opened the shutter, not just the box I'm sure you will love it.

Go play with the 3-4? stop IS...

Its definitely much lighter than my f/2.8 was, and only seems slightly heavier than my f/4 non-IS was. This is my first lens with IS, so I'm not sure how it is yet--but people say great things about it.

Could be, its a different color than my f/4 non-IS was. Its almost kinda brown...

Yeah, I haven't taken any pics with it yet, so I'm not calling B&H for an RMA yet. I guess I'm just a little surprised...

it should be made of the same barrel as the non IS with accomidations for the IS unit. basically i think you just need to get used to erm... i dont know it honestly should be the same.

Surprised with what, the overall feel of it? As compared to another F4 IS you had, or a completely different lens? Even if this lens were covered with pink fuzzy frilly stuff, I would still use it.

I forget what B&H gives you for an RMA period, but take the opportunity to get out there while there's still some sunshine left in the day. Sure, it's a little windy, but at least there's no rain!

lemminglover wrote in post #3134523
I have both the f4's and both feel pretty much the same in terms of build and weight. They are both made of the same stuff so you must be mistaken.

I agree with flippinfleck - judge the lens once you've opened the shutter, not just the box I'm sure you will love it.

I read some reviews when the IS version came out that said it was pretty much identical in weight and build to the non-IS version with only some minor cosmetic differences and updated optics...so I was surprised to see comments starting to crop up about the build quality (again...mine arrives tomorrow)...so this is re-assuring.
Thanks.

I didn't know f/4 IS body is made out of plastic. Dam.. I should have kept my f/4 non IS

Both made of the same thing - read up

roqdawg wrote in post #3134617
I read some reviews when the IS version came out that said it was pretty much identical in weight and build to the non-IS version with only some minor cosmetic differences and updated optics...so I was surprised to see comments starting to crop up about the build quality (again...mine arrives tomorrow)...so this is re-assuring.
Thanks.

You will love it - ignore this thread . 3 to 4 stop IS, a special panning mode and light enough to carry around all day. Add to that the pin sharp optics, colour rendition and contrast and there is not much not to like. I sleep with mine

lemminglover wrote in post #3134671
You will love it - ignore this thread . 3 to 4 stop IS, a special panning mode and light enough to carry around all day. Add to that the pin sharp optics, colour rendition and contrast and there is not much not to like. I sleep with mine

You must have gotten the limited-edition pink frilly one!

timnosenzo wrote in post #3134399
So I just got my 70-200 f/4 IS from B&H, open it up, and I was a little surprised how cheap the lens body feels. I've had 2 of the f/4 non-IS versions and the f/2.8 non-IS and I'm pretty sure that the lens barrels were made out of metal on those, but this lens is obviously made of plastic. Has anyone else noticed this?

I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, so maybe I will change my mind once I do, but I am sort of feeling some buyers remorse here. I mean, this thing is twice the price of the non-IS version, but its built to a cheaper standard? I'm kind of feeling like for this much money I should just take the jump to the f/2.8 IS model and call it a day.

Am I crazy here?

It's not made of plastic. You are crazy. My first impressions of the lens were the total opposite. it felt like it was machined from billet aluminum.

What does the box say? Did they send you the wrong lens?