I guess I am the only person who feels that the price ($1,249) is not bad. Take a look at the "Glass Canon’s using, one fluorite element and two UD-glass elements". These are the same elements used in the "Top of the Line “L” Glass 300 f2/8 IS, 400 f2/8 IS, 500 f/4 IS, and the 600 f/4 IS". I believe that, this lens might be one "Hell of a Lens" to contend with. This is just my opinion, but I wish all "L" Glass had one Fluorite and two UD elements for $1,249.00. I have the 70-200 f2/8 L IS USM, and I am wondering if this new lens might not Out Class it.
Well like Yakim, I solved my own conundrum with the price of this lens too.
I picked up a mint 70-200 2.8 IS for £760 a day or so ago. When you consider the F4.0 IS will sell for £989.00 or so in the UK, I feel I got good value for money.
Johno, Mick your both right another massive price difference us guy's here in the UK have to pay (Or in this case not pay, as I alrady have the F4 non IS version and happy with it).
Johno where did you get the bargin 2.8 IS for £760 from?
tonyakins wrote:
Re: Price New 70-200 f/4 L IS USM.
I guess I am the only person who feels that the price ($1,249) is not bad. Take a look at the "Glass Canon’s using, one fluorite element and two UD-glass elements". These are the same elements used in the "Top of the Line “L” Glass 300 f2/8 IS, 400 f2/8 IS, 500 f/4 IS, and the 600 f/4 IS". I believe that, this lens might be one "Hell of a Lens" to contend with. This is just my opinion, but I wish all "L" Glass had one Fluorite and two UD elements for $1,249.00. I have the 70-200 f2/8 L IS USM, and I am wondering if this new lens might not Out Class it.
I disagree. May I respectfully say that you are focusing on the specs, not the performance. I don't recall what flourite or UD elements are used in the 70-200/4 non-IS, but regardless, that lens is universally considered to be outstanding. Hence, I don't expect the IS version to beat it optically. Hence, to me the price premium is solely for IS, and I think it is too much.
Now, if it turns out that Canon has managed to squeeze out yet more image quality at the same time it added IS, I will modify my view.
Totally agree. 'Exotic' lens elements certainly have their place but the 70-200/4.0 is hardly an ambitious or complex design and would be unlikely to benefit greatly from their use over and above whats already in there.
Can't ever imagine the IS being superior enough to justify that price given the quality of the existing model. Frankly, I'd be a little surprised if it remained as good at all.
tonyakins wrote:
Re: Price New 70-200 f/4 L IS USM.
I guess I am the only person who feels that the price ($1,249) is not bad. Take a look at the "Glass Canon’s using, one fluorite element and two UD-glass elements".
These are the same elements used in the non-IS version of 70-200 F4 L.
I'm pretty sure we should expect the price to be a lot less than this in a year or so. I'm also pretty sure that the 70-200 f/4L didn't cost $550 when it first came out.
I don't know what all the complaints are about concerning the 70-200 F4 L not having a tripod ring. I use mine on a 300D with a Canon 1.4X converter and it works fine. Using it on my monopod or tripod I have no issues. If your having *droop* problems using it on your camera and tripod without a ring then you probably need to invest in a better tripod head, not a tripod ring.
it has listed here the MSRP being 1250. I was at photoshop world today at canons booth i had the chance to use this new lens and the new XTi camera. with the lens they told me it was 1900. defintely not worth it unless you have that money to toss and wanted the smaller kit. it was very nice though and i did like the compact feeling to it.
This lens was the last straw for me, I was weighing up whether to switch to Sony or not and to sell my 350D, 2 primes and one L zoom as I find image stabilisation is really useful. I was looking for something in the 70-200 range When I saw the 70-200 f4 had doubled in price with the IS I felt that Canon were ripping people off with their IS prices and wern't going to put it in body for a long time if they could get away with their IS price hike.
So I sold the 350D and 50 1.4 and have a prime and L zoom up for sale here.
I know I can get better ultimate quality from Canon, but I think they are putting short term profits from their IS lenses first and will lose out in the long run if they don't look at what customers want.
You know, for the ISO performance of the Sony even if you add the IS into the equation you probably aren't any ahead at all. You'd switch systems all over a single new lens introduction?
This lens is very intriguing to me. I have the non IS version and really, really like it for its crisp images. I've probably got close to 5000 images shot through that lens. The IS version would be really great for me. I think the premium is a touch high, but it is on the high end of the range but in the ballpark.
Where I'd use this a LOT is in my skiing pictures (alpine racing). Weight of equipment is at a premium and I usually carry a very compact monopod or even a tripod on occasion to get good shots with the f/4 version. The IS version means I could probably leave that all home or at least just take the monopod. That would be a BIG advantage to me.
My other choice is to use my 300mm f/4L IS. If I got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS instead, the weight increase over the 300mm is equal to the entire weight of the f/4 IS version. Do the math, that is a pretty big weight and size difference.
So, for a portable longish zoom this f/4 IS ought to be a great lens (once we get to see some shots and evaluate). I do expect the price to drop soon, and you will - I think - see it at some of the more non high volume discounters to drop fairly quickly as they move their allocation. This is exactly what happened with the 24-105. For example, its list is $1249 and what most retailers sold it for. I got mine for $200 brand new from such a discounter.
No, not for a single lens, I've been looking for a portrait zoom that I can use in low available light without flash or tripod. The Canon options are 17-55IS, but the range is too small, or a 24-70L which I've more or less got with my 28-80L but I have too many shots lost to camera shake. I tried primes but the DOF is very small, they gave a dreamy effect wide open and there was still camera shake in some shots.
I think the F4 image stabilized zooms have too small a maximum aperture.
So I'm hoping in-body stabilization with a Tamron 28-70 f2.8 will work.
Personally, I think no camera shake in low available light is not all that practical regardless of how you achieve the IS function. I guess that depends on 'how low.'
You really need to look at some support (tripod or monopod). IS is not as good as this regardless (anyone's IS).
On top of that, I think the Sony is several stops worse in ISO performance at the high end. So, whatever you may get back with your particular combination, you give back on the ISO performance. There are not free lunches in this.
That all being said, an IS lens with Canon's high ISO performance would be the winner here for sure. You can get that from Canon but you can't get that from Sony.
So - the f/4 IS USM lens (or any of the other IS lenses) if it gives you 2-3 stops and if you bump up the ISO 1-2 more is still a better deal than a ISO400 practical top end with IS, IMO.
You might also want to look at the 28-135. Some report good luck with it in this sort of application. I'm not a fan of it, but it might work for you and it is inexpensive.
When I first saw this lens announced it really didn't interest me that much. I have since sold my 70-200L IS and have a 100-400L IS. Both of those lenses are huge and heavy. I think the 70-200 f/4 IS would be a perfect companion to my 24-105 f/4L for travel and general use.
With the great high ISO performance of the 5D, I don't think I will miss the 70-200L IS all that much (for the same reason I don't miss the 24-70 f/2.8 now that I have the 24-105 IS). Of course, I will use my fast primes for really low light. I just hope the 70-200 f/4 IS sells at somewhat of a discount or Canon has a nice rebate for it.
>> This lens was the last straw for me, I was weighing up whether to switch to Sony or not and to sell my 350D, 2 primes and one L zoom as I find image stabilisation is really useful.
About 1 year ago I switched to digital. I debated long and hard whether to stay with Canon or to switch to Minolta with the fabulous 7D. Each choice had its pros and cons and what eventually mad me stick with Canon was AF speed. This feature is very important to me and nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - beats ring USM.
petermendelson wrote:
When I first saw this lens announced it really didn't interest me that much. I have since sold my 70-200L IS and have a 100-400L IS. Both of those lenses are huge and heavy. I think the 70-200 f/4 IS would be a perfect companion to my 24-105 f/4L for travel and general use.
Peter
I also think the 24-105 + 70-200/4 IS will be a perfect on the 5D for travel. I will sell my 70-200/4 non IS and the 70-300 DO
Hopefully the next 5D will have the dust reduction goodies of the 400D than I can change lenses all I want because I really like to use my fast primes.
Yes, the noise on a Sony would be enough to stop me going above 200 iso. What I need is a good portrait lens and I think the 70-200 becomes that on a FF, so the ideal would be a 70-200 f2.8 IS with a 5D, but this works out at around $4600 which is a lot, while the Sony comes to around $1200 with a Tamron 28-75.
Above that and looking at a Canon xti or 30d theres the 24-105 f4 IS - would that be good enough for low light work?
I could also buy a stop-gap camera for now and sell it when new and cheaper FF models become available.
