70-200/f4 L IS Review

[Kevin]

Just in case anyone was curious how the new baby 70-200 with IS stacks up against its siblings have a look here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

[gluwater]

It looks like a nice lens but with a $1250 price tag I wonder how popular it will really be. For the landscape photographer I doubt if the IS will be that useful and it is slightly heavier than the f/4 non-IS. That review makes it seem that you can use it in the same low light that you can use the 2.8 IS, that is just not true. You will have higher shutter speeds at 2.8 and even though you may not have camera shake with the f/4 IS, you will get motion blur. At 2 times the price of the f/4, $100 more than the f/2.8 and only $400 less than the 2.8 IS, I just wonder how many people will buy it. I guess we'll just have to wait for Harv to buy one and field test it for us against his other two 70-200's banana;.

[Kevin]

I forget all the details but supposedly with its latest generation IS they say it can provide an additional 4 stops. I was looking at the 70-200/f2.8 w/o IS and this lens is close in price. Just trying to decide if the f2.8 is worth more to me than having the IS. I've got to go back and read the other reviews to compare.

I know a few people are posting their opinions of it on dpr.

[Keith]

I was thinking the same thing Nick!

It looks like a nice lens but with a $1250 price tag I wonder how popular it will really be. For the landscape photographer I doubt if the IS will be that useful and it is slightly heavier than the f/4 non-IS. That review makes it seem that you can use it in the same low light that you can use the 2.8 IS, that is just not true. You will have higher shutter speeds at 2.8 and even though you may not have camera shake with the f/4 IS, you will get motion blur. At 2 times the price of the f/4, $100 more than the f/2.8 and only $400 less than the 2.8 IS, I just wonder how many people will buy it. I guess we'll just have to wait for Harv to buy one and field test it for us against his other two 70-200's banana;.

[Kevin]

Actually, the prices aren't that bad. Checking KEH.com, the 70-200/f4 L IS is $1199, the 70-200/f2.8 L is $1129 (but does have a rebate) and the 70-200/f2.8L IS is $1689.

So for someone like me who has a budget of ~$1100 for that zoom, I'd consider buying it for the IS and if the quality is as good or better than the f4 version it's a no brainer. But I'm not positive I wouldn't rather have the advantage of the f2.8. The stretch to ~$1700 is a bit much for me right now. So there's at least one person (me) who's considering it.

[imageswest]

For hiking/backpacking and travel photography, this lens would be a great choice.

[Rudi]

I chose the 70-200mm f/2.8 L non IS even though the IS version was available at the time. As much as I believe in IS at the longer focal lengths, the non IS model is optically superior, and there is much less to go wrong with the lens. As mentioned above, IS will not help with subject motion, and at 200mm and under, I just feel that I can do without IS.

I did notice that when I used to own the 28-135mm IS some time ago, it made me lazy, and my photos with lenses that didn't have IS were always blurry (or not as sharp as they should be). So, for me at least, not having IS keeps my technique up to scratch. I would (and do) have IS at longer focal lengths, I just don't consider 200mm to be "long" :)

The lens seems expensive - unless you need light and IS, there are better options already available - the non IS f/4 version is a cracker, and the f/2.8 IS version, for when you really need the IS, is not that more expensive.

[Mao]

here's a link that might help in your decision

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/index.shtml

[Harv]

It looks like a nice lens but with a $1250 price tag I wonder how popular it will really be. For the landscape photographer I doubt if the IS will be that useful and it is slightly heavier than the f/4 non-IS. That review makes it seem that you can use it in the same low light that you can use the 2.8 IS, that is just not true. You will have higher shutter speeds at 2.8 and even though you may not have camera shake with the f/4 IS, you will get motion blur. At 2 times the price of the f/4, $100 more than the f/2.8 and only $400 less than the 2.8 IS, I just wonder how many people will buy it. I guess we'll just have to wait for Harv to buy one and field test it for us against his other two 70-200's banana;.

I actually considered doing that. :p

Then my wife convinced me to just get the 2.8 IS version. Gawd, I love my wife. Yep, the same wife that bought me the 300 2.8 IS this week. I shudder to think of what she has in mind for payback.

[Jonathan]

Kevin, I just think you would miss that 2.8 bokeh with your portraits. Can't say this lens interests me at the moment...maybe down the road

[bobber]

You know what they say about"PAYBACK'S"

[Wulff]

Lens purchases are Im discovering a pain.

Ive been giving alot of thought to all these lenses. I could use something that covers the mid range. Planned uses would primarly be I think when Im fly fishing so arguements for both the 2.8 and f4/IS have their merits. As its not a range I expect to use alot Ive even looked at Sigmas 70-200 2.8. One problem Im having is Id like to able to use it at my daughters gymnastics events. No flash and terrible light, so that would rule out the f4, Im not sure that even 2.8 is fast enough, so in the back of my mind Im thinking about the 85mm 1.8 :)

Its enough to drive you to drink.