The cost difference isn't that far off an entire Sony Alpha camera with inbuilt IS or even a whole Nikon 18-200 with VR !!!!! Simply staggering and absolutely, wholly unjustifiable. Do they seriously believe their users are that stupid? They have the dominant market position and a huge user-base, yet they don't price for volume sales. Can anyone understand that?
I'm very surprised Canon released an IS version of this lens, I had always assumed that the 70-200/4 was basically a budget L-lens for those who can't afford the four-figure glass. Still, at that price I'd rather pay $300 more for the f/2.8 version...although I do believe that the price will go down to around $1000 after all is said and done. Plus another $100 for the tripod collar...
Also, by adding weather sealing to a lens like this, Canon is essentially inducting it into the "pro" lens class? I think most photographers who would make use of the weather sealing would go with the f/2.8...
This makes the 70-300 DO IS look great. Especially if the MTF's are not as good as non-IS. Less weight, more reach, more stealthy black color... either that or just go cheap for an original F/4 non-IS.
Mr Grim wrote:
This makes the 70-300 DO IS look great. Especially if the MTF's are not as good as non-IS. Less weight, more reach, more stealthy black color... either that or just go cheap for an original F/4 non-IS.
Mr Grim wrote:
This makes the 70-300 DO IS look great. Especially if the MTF's are not as good as non-IS. Less weight, more reach, more stealthy black color... either that or just go cheap for an original F/4 non-IS.
The 70-300 DO ISwas something of a bomb if you ask me. Simply wasnt a very stellar lens for the money. I had one, it was pretty poor past 200mm. The 70-300 IS they came out with was in my opinion a better lenses for close to half the money.
70-200 f4 IS should be an excellent lens by all accounts. Not cheap, but come on, people have been begging for this for literally years. I dont think they'll have a shortage of buyers.
get ready for a flood of 70-200/4 on the B&S. good time to buy.
I love the 760g weight. It'll be interesting to see a 70-300IS vs 70-200/4IS shootout, as this new one could well be the ultimate travel tele zoom. I have a 70-200/2.8IS (I guess 70-200IS is no longer a unique description) and as we all know the weight is backbreaking.
One theory is that Canon has adapted their inkjet/bubble jet printer theory: body can be cheap/competitive, ink/lenses will be more expensive as you are hooked. But they indeed make better IQ lenses these days.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
The cost difference isn't that far off an entire Sony Alpha camera with inbuilt IS or even a whole Nikon 18-200 with VR !!!!! Simply staggering and absolutely, wholly unjustifiable. Do they seriously believe their users are that stupid? They have the dominant market position and a huge user-base, yet they don't price for volume sales. Can anyone understand that?
Looks quite pricy If I was not looking for light weight (which is the reason why I will probably look at this lens one day or another), I would go straight to f/2.8 IS.
I note that the "4 stops" gain vanished in the last links (e.g. the japaneese site mentions "3 stops"). On the good side, the weight is very reasonable: 760g for the IS against 705g for the non IS and size is the same (according to the japaneese site).
Is it me or do they clain for better MTFs for the IS version ? That would be something.
If there is a good reduction in ghosting on the new IS version I might upgrade, I find my 70-200 to suffer when Im shooting bright light sorces. But that could be due to the distance between the rear elelment and the sensor as I don't really see the problem when shooting film.
If I was not looking for light weight (which is the reason why I will probably look at this lens one day or another), I would go straight to f/2.8 IS.