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

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

googlegroups@sensation.net.au - 13 Nov 2006 22:34 GMT

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. ;)

Reply to this Message

rmd - 14 Nov 2006 04:38 GMT

>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
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>particularly as the longest lens I've used up to this point is a
>whopping 85mm. ;)

Try here

"http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=304&sort=7&cat=27&page=3"

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

Regards

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 14 Nov 2006 09:04 GMT

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

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.

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Alan K. - 14 Nov 2006 09:40 GMT

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

For those whose pockets are at least as deep as the Jenolan Caves,
anyway... 8^>

Reply to this Message

googlegroups@sensation.net.au - 14 Nov 2006 11:49 GMT

> >> Did you try out the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM too ?
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> For those whose pockets are at least as deep as the Jenolan Caves,
> anyway... 8^>

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! ;)

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 15 Nov 2006 08:56 GMT

> >And Canon will eventually be forced to release an image stabilised body, at
> >which time the f2.8 becomes an even better choice.
>
> For those whose pockets are at least as deep as the Jenolan Caves,
> anyway... 8^>

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 :-)

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Hank S. - 19 Nov 2006 04:15 GMT

>> >And Canon will eventually be forced to release an image stabilised body,
>at
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I would suggest a non-IS f4 in that case, it will leave you some money for
>food :-)

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.

Reply to this Message

Alan K. - 19 Nov 2006 04:22 GMT

>>> >And Canon will eventually be forced to release an image stabilised body,
>>at
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>($1,999). That's a fair amount of gruel... 8^> Though averaged out
>over the life of the lens, it's probably less important.

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,
GRRR!!!

Reply to this Message

googlegroups@sensation.net.au - 14 Nov 2006 11:45 GMT

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

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.

Reply to this Message

cmyk - 15 Nov 2006 08:50 GMT

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

Cheers

> > > Did you try out the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM too ?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> 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.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 15 Nov 2006 09:04 GMT

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 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.

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.

MrT.

Reply to this Message