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.
As I've only had a Canon dslr, if I've had good AF speed it must be something that I've taken for granted as I don't know what another cameras AF is like.
No problem.
Just compare ring USM lenses to non-ring USM ones.
BTW, when they also lack IF things - mostly - get real slow. The only exception I know is the 50/1.8. No ring USM, no IF but AF speed is quite O.K.
The 70-200/4 IS will definitely be worth the price if optically similar to the 70-200/2.8 IS. I'd like to use it as my main 70-200 and use the bulky and heavy 2.8 IS only for the rare low light situations.
Why is it that every one is criticizing the price of the new lens I had to pay $1400 for the non IS version of this lens the $1275 is Aus$ in the states that will come down to +/- US$ 977 or NZ$1417 that's $17 more than the old lens. I have mine in an auction right now hoping to get NZ1000 so I can upgrade end of September when it becomes available (I hope date from www.photo.co.nz)
It's a pity that this lens comes in white color only. I just hate that conspicuous white. I feel canon should provide an optional black color for their new L lenses.
See that's the problem. You buy a lens paying 1250. And then you spend another 50 bucks to clothe it. We should have got this lens in our choice of color (black or white) for 1000. But anyways, I don't want to start this all over again.
This works with 1.4 EX, I suppose. But would IS work with it? Probably not?
Wow, for awhile now, I've been hearing so many "if they make f/4 IS, I would buy it!" comments yet now that Canon releases the lens, people are complaining?
Seemingly great optics, weather sealing, IS, it looks to be the perfect travel lens...except for the white color. I agree that Canon priced this lens fairly.
IS works fine with Extenders. I tried both 1.4x and 2x with both 70-200/2.8 IS and 300/4 IS - no serious issue except you should be a bit more cautious rgd shutter speeds. But that's because increased FL. not beacuse of IS flaws.
Well, the more I think about this lens the more I think it is perfect for me! I am so excited!!! I had the 70-200mm 2.8 NON IS. It was just too big/heavy/bulky for me. I didn't know how to use it and make it work for me - as a walk around I would never grab it because it was just too heavy - I usually shot it at the long end but since it was too heavy for me and I needed to use the tri/mono pod then I had just as soon use my 300 2.8IS. I picked up a couple of primes (200 and 135mm) to see which suited me the best. But, I still missed something between my 24-70mm and my longer lenses (200, 300 and 400).
I wanted light weight, quality, and not much overlap with my current set up - basically I wanted a 70-200 2.8 on a diet I also wanted IS - IS will be a big plus for me using the lens as a walk around (a real shot saver with my hand/wrist condition). I think I will be very happy with f/4 since most of my shooting will be outside with good lighting. Did I mention that I am excited about this lens
Yakim Peled wrote:
If build quality is not a prime issue for you, then the 70-300 IS can do all that at half the cost.
Hi Yakim. I had been considering the 70-300mm and it seems to get good reviews. There are two things that I was not sure I would like about it - the zoom creep issue (I know you can lock it) and the build quality. I also wonder if the picture quality can stand up to the new 70-200
I had also been looking at the DO version. Do you have any experience with either of the 70-300? Thanks!
DO? I think I'll never buy the DO version. Price is too high, bokeh is too weird and flare resistance is almost non-existent.
Thanks for the review link. I checked out the reviews last week but I didn't make it to the end so I missed yours. It does sound like a great lens for the price. I had a 28-135 IS and loved it for the price. The AF speed worries me a little - I have become spoiled to faster AF - and I am not sure I would like the zoom on it. It is still on my short list, tho. Thanks for the info!
Yakim Peled wrote:
As I said, It's a "package" issue.
Correct. Considering how well the 70-300 IS performs and its tremendous comparable value, I find the 70-200 f/4 L IS to be a very hard sell indeed at its price, or even feature, point.
For 1/2 stop at the long end, and even less throughout, the speed difference at that level is relatively minor. For high performance and subject separation, f/2.8 is still the true differentiator. Even though the 70-200 f/4 L IS holds tremendous performance promise, giving up 100mm at the long end and a common filter thread size just aren't compelling enough to move me away from the 70-300 IS for a front-line compact telezoom, or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for high performance, which neither the 70-300 IS nor 70-200 f/4 L IS can provide.
They've really created a product placement problem for themselves here with effectively 5 (or 6 if you count the DO) in this focal length range. After all, what makes the 70-200 f/2.8's so worthwhile despite their relatively small reach span is their high speed and narrow DOF capabilities. What made the 70-200 f/4 such a great lens was its value as a compact, high-quality mainstream performance telezoom. Had Canon eliminated the original 70-200 f/4, and added the stabilized version at or around the $900 price range, it would be a much different story.
Furthermore, given the benefit it affords, IS is almost becoming essential to optimal outcomes, especially given its relative cost compared to the entire rig in use at any given time; and spurred by the competition's camera-based IS, it seems like Canon has finally appreciated its true value and is pricing accordingly. Not necessarily a good thing for bargain hunters, but I think it reflects the natural progression of the market segment.
>> They've really created a product placement problem for themselves here with effectively 5 (or 6 if you count the DO) in this focal length range.
I do not see it that way. I see several important differentiators between these 6 lenses (others may see more) where there are 6 different packages to choose from, depending on your specific taste.
1. Price.
2. Size.
3. Max aperture.
4. Colour.
5. Build quality.
6. IS.
7. Weight.
8. Filter size.
9. AF speed.
10. Range.
11. Optical quality (I am referring mainly to the DO's wired bokeh and flare issues).
I thus see these 6 lenses as complementary, where each has its own niche in the market. As Canon decided to go ahead and make all these 6 at the same time, they seem to agree with me :-) Maybe I should apply for a job at Canon? :-))))
BTW, for the APS consumer there is also a 7th option: The Sigma 50-150/2.8. Then, two more issues come to play: Future compatibility and future FF compatibility.
There is an old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. While I generally agree with it, in this specific case I think it's a blessing.
I agree. If the 70-200 f/4 IS USM has the same terrific optical performance as the non IS version, this will be a winner of a lens for all the reasons you claim.
Also, each generation of Canon's IS is getting better. My personal feeling is that the benefit gained until the last generation (3rd generation on) was ok but not killer. From the 24-105 on the IS has been much better, and this one ought to be pretty darn good.
I don't see the 70-300 really competing with this lens much at all. I'd buy this lens over the 70-300 any day.
Remford wrote
For 1/2 stop at the long end, and even less throughout, the speed difference at that level is relatively minor. For high performance and subject separation, f/2.8 is still the true differentiator. Even though the 70-200 f/4 L IS holds tremendous performance promise, giving up 100mm at the long end and a common filter thread size just aren't compelling enough to move me away from the 70-300 IS for a front-line compact telezoom, or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for high performance, which neither the 70-300 IS nor 70-200 f/4 L IS can provide.
It seems to me the same argument would apply to the non-IS versions of all these lenses. So following this would let us believe the 70-200/4 is redundant, which it seems not to be.
I agree with Yakim's post, where he mentions all the differentiators between all these lenses. The more I think about it, the more I think the 70-200/4 IS is "my" ideal package for a medium tele lens, with high quality optics, good build quality, IS, low weight. It is just exactly the lens I would take with me for travelling and especially for trekking, since this is when I will get my best photo opportunities (hence, I want good optics; in this area the 70-200/4 was always considered a wonderful lens), do not need large aperture but wish to keep weight down (so, /4 versions are preferable), prefer not to set up a tripod for each shot (so, IS, please) and may expose my equipment to tough environment (so, L build quality, please).
I also wanted IS - IS will be a big plus for me using the lens as a walk around (a real shot saver with my hand/wrist condition). I think I will be very happy with f/4 since most of my shooting will be outside with good lighting. Did I mention that I am excited about this lens 
- and I am not sure I would like the zoom on it. It is still on my short list, tho. Thanks for the info!