tmr_wa Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #9 · 70-200 f4 much worse the IS?? | |
In the past few months, I've started to realize that the 70-200/4L probably has a home (again) in my bag. The lens is very sharp and it's capable of producing great images. The lens is certainly comparable to the 200/2.8 - albeit a bit longer, a stop slower, off-white instead of black. The 70-200/4 also makes for the completion of a great trio: 17-40/4, 50/1.4, 70-200/4.
I have no experience with the 70-200/4 IS, but I trust trenchmonkey's words -- I'm sure the IS is stunning. But, as trenchmonkey suggests, the 70-200/4 is still a great buy. Indeed, given the introduction of the 70-200/4 IS, now seems like a great time to find a bargain on the 70-200/4 non-IS . I'm considering the IS, but I'll likely just go with another 70-200/4 non-IS.
Finally, I also really liked the close-focusing ability of the 70-200/4 (that's horse or cow/bull hair):

--tom
|