I bit the bullet and ordered the new Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS

Discussion in 'Canon' started by googlegroups, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    I was going to get the non-IS version but after seeing several sample
    shots I couldn't resist the temptation of the extra 3-4 stops that IS
    offers. Sure, a tripod is always best, but I don't have it permanently
    attached to myself... the only downside is the hefty premium, it's
    nearly twice the price of the non-IS version. I managed to get it for
    $1755 (including delivery) which seems to be a fairly decent early
    adopter price.

    Does anyone else have this lens? I'm looking forward to testing out IS,
    particularly as the longest lens I've used up to this point is a
    whopping 85mm. ;)
    googlegroups, Nov 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. googlegroups

    rmd Guest

    Try here


    Did you try out the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM too ?

    rmd, Nov 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. googlegroups

    Mr.T Guest

    Of course he didn't or he wouldn't have chosen the f4 IS :)

    And Canon will eventually be forced to release an image stabilised body, at
    which time the f2.8 becomes an even better choice.

    Mr.T, Nov 14, 2006
  4. googlegroups

    Alan K. Guest

    For those whose pockets are at least as deep as the Jenolan Caves,
    anyway... 8^>
    Alan K., Nov 14, 2006
  5. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    The reason I don't carry a tripod all the time is that it's a little
    heavy. There's a similar problem with the f2.8, when compared with the
    f4 :)

    70-200mm f4 IS : 760g
    70-200mm f2.8 : 1310g

    For the style of shots I take it's better to retain DOF and ISO with a
    couple of stops worth of IS, rather than just opening up to the max.
    googlegroups, Nov 14, 2006
  6. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    centre.net.au only shows a $60 difference between the f2.8L non-IS and
    the f4 IS...

    Having said that, please don't tell my wife how much I spent on this
    lens! ;)
    googlegroups, Nov 14, 2006
  7. googlegroups

    cmyk Guest

    Of course one could attach the camera to a shoulder stock (eg BushHawk) for
    a marked improvement in stability with any lens...


    cmyk, Nov 15, 2006
  8. googlegroups

    Mr.T Guest

    Since both lenses are a similar price, why would you say that? You don't
    plan on ever being able to afford another body maybe?
    I would suggest a non-IS f4 in that case, it will leave you some money for
    food :)

    Mr.T, Nov 15, 2006
  9. googlegroups

    Mr.T Guest

    Valid reasons, if the cost of IS is worth it to you for not using a tripod I
    guess. Wouldn't help with my mostly action shots though.

    Mr.T, Nov 15, 2006
  10. googlegroups

    Hank S. Guest

    Sorry, a mis-read on my part. For some reason I thought you were
    talking about them needing to release an image stabilised f2.8 lens,
    which I note that they have... albeit at an RRP of $A3,589.

    In which case the bread-and-water option is certainly something to
    consider. 8^>

    Still, the prices on the IS f4 and the non-IS f2.8 aren't THAT
    similar; the latter's RRP ($2,409) is over $400 more than the former's
    ($1,999). That's a fair amount of gruel... 8^> Though averaged out
    over the life of the lens, it's probably less important.
    Hank S., Nov 19, 2006
  11. googlegroups

    Alan K. Guest

    That was of course posted by me, not my off-sider who sometmes uses my
    Agent and sometimes forgets to reset the user information to my own,
    Alan K., Nov 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.