Mark, first, thanks for the test and the photos. May I ask this, do you find the IS on the new version of the f/4 L different from the IS on the f/2.8 L, that is, are you able to achieve a slower shutter speed, hand held, witht the f/4 L IS than with the f/2.8 L IS, or is it about the same. When you factor in the cost of a tripod ring (which comes with the f/2.8) the price difference between the new f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS is almost not too bad for what you get in lens speed. The specs show the f/2.8 is twice as heavy as the f/4 and about an inch longer in barrel length and about a half inch larger in diameter. In short, overall, if you had to choose, would you still go for the f/2.8 or would the new f/4 be suitable for most of us, that is, advanced amateurs, maybed semi-pros.
Thanks, Mark, for all you efforts.
Joe, having had both the 70-200 F4 and the 70-200 2.8 IS I can tell you that they are two totally different beasts in terms of size and weight. I suspect it is going to boil down to if you really need the 2.8 then get it. If you don't, save your back and neck and get the F4 IS. I suspect that this lens is going to be very popular as a travel zoom for its lower weight rather than its lower price.
Hrow wrote:
Wade, That's pretty impressive. I am not sure that my 70-200 2.8 IS would hold up that well at 1/10 sec.
Yeah, and I am getting pretty shakey as I get older. One of these young guys might even to get slower speeds. Heres one with the canon 1.4 TC (handheld from across the street).
Reinheim wrote:
Mark, first, thanks for the test and the photos. May I ask this, do you find the IS on the new version of the f/4 L different from the IS on the f/2.8 L, that is, are you able to achieve a slower shutter speed, hand held, witht the f/4 L IS than with the f/2.8 L IS, or is it about the same. When you factor in the cost of a tripod ring (which comes with the f/2.8) the price difference between the new f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS is almost not too bad for what you get in lens speed. The specs show the f/2.8 is twice as heavy as the f/4 and about an inch longer in barrel length and about a half inch larger in diameter. In short, overall, if you had to choose, would you still go for the f/2.8 or would the new f/4 be suitable for most of us, that is, advanced amateurs, maybed semi-pros.
Thanks, Mark, for all you efforts.
Joe,
When I got my package I thought they sent the wrong lens at first because it was so small. I used to own the 70-200 2.8 non IS and this is little baby in comparison.
ward1066 wrote:
Yeah, and I am getting pretty shakey as I get older. One of these young guys might even to get slower speeds. Heres one with the canon 1.4 TC (handheld from across the street).
So how's the low light performance compared to the f/2.8? Does the newer IS make handheld evening/night shots possible with the f/4? If so that could determine if this lense is going to be added to my travel kit.
i have been sitting in my office and shooting some shots from my seat. I tried the IS vs non IS. What is amazing is that i can get tack sharp images reproducibly at 200mm f4, 1/16th of a second. Without IS not even close at 1/50th of a second. At 1/10th they are still decent but not outstanding and at 1/6 only about 1/5 are reasonable.
The new feature at the-digital-picture.com for comparing crops of different lenses at different fstops is really great. This lens seems to be a gem by any means.
...especially if you're into aviation photography