4 stops at F4 vs 3 stops at 2.8 IS equals roughly the same advantage. for around 450 dollars difference for the 2.8IS i am quite content with my recent purchase. Anyone have any idea what the MTF figures for the 2.8IS is at F4? This is where that comment posted by someone that canon should post lens information like leica would be usefull.
So I just bought a non IS 2.8 with the rebate recently. About $200 or so less than this new f/4 will be. A friend likes my 2.8 but I said the f/4 might be better for her weight wise. Do I tell her to spend the extra $700 or so on this thing instead of the regular one? Man, they aren't playing around with these prices. I could personally think of many other things to buy with that money.
DMSsix wrote:
Do I tell her to spend the extra $700 or so on this thing instead of the regular one? Man, they aren't playing around with these prices. I could personally think of many other things to buy with that money.
A 400D for a start
Edited by Sprout Crumble on Aug 24, 2006 at 05:09 AM GMT
"Importantly for travelling photographers, the lens is designed for use in harsh conditions, incorporating high levels of dust and moisture resistance."
If it really comes out at that price it may kill its reception. I only spent $300 difference for my new f/2.8L IS. I can put it at f/4 and have an advantage in sharpness with the other wide open.
The selling point for the 70-200 F/4L was its reasonable price for an "L".
Bear in mind that the street price will be lower. My guess is around $1000 once the initial hype settles.
Not sure if I would sell my 2.8 for this. I don't shoot at 2.8 a lot, but the weight no longer bothers me and this thing is pretty pricey. Plus I have my 70-300... --c
About the only thing I'd change on the 2.8 IS would be to make the hood retractable like the excellent 400 5.6L hood.
I hardly ever use it above f/4. Like Jim mentioned, f/4 is a full stop closed-down on the 2.8. Between that and the better autofocus with 2.8 lenses, it'd be really hard for an f/4 version to compare--certainly when it's only a few hundred bucks cheaper.
I rarely use 2.8 so I would be tempted to trade for the reduction in weight if the price were more reasonable. Seems pretty steep to me unless they made the lens a good bit sharper as well.
