I'll be the contrarian here and say that I tried the IS version based on all the positive comments I'd read about it (similar to the ones in this thread), and maybe I was just too critical, or maybe I got a less than perfect copy, but I wasn't really impressed with its sharpness at f4. Stopped down was a different story, but if f4 is as wide as a lens will go, I want it to be very sharp there. The copy I had wasn't, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it was the exception, but I didn't and don't feel like paying return shipping multiple times to find a good one.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
More than "very nice". It is excellent whichever way one cuts it.
(One note though......if "skin smooth" was done in PS, I guess it could have been done without that. )
I love mine and it's one of my most used lenses (next to my plastic fantastic 50mm). I picked mine up for around $400 and it was a steal! She's a bit more nowadays though.
I started with the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. A great lens, just that it was a bit heavy to carry it around for hours in Mexican or Florida heat. Then I got the f/4 non-IS for travel primarily. The lens is such a good performer that I have not gone for the new IS version yet. Besides, I have 70-200 f/2.8 IS as well.
I have shot with it just about anything, from BIF to flowers, and I have been quite happy with the results.
Gaylon Holmes wrote:
I'm a long term Nikon user who has always been envious of the f/4 L glass lineup and the 70-200mm is one of the real Canon attractions.
And now with the 7D out and about I'm running out of excuses
Same here! I even bought one a few weeks ago (non-IS), just to see how I'd like the L glass
After getting a couple days use from it, it's really awesome. I haven't sold it yet, but plan to as I may switch to Canon and get a 100-400L.
Back when I was in school, my parents bought me the 70-200 f/4 by mistake. I asked for a 70-300 for Christmas or birthday or something and my mom ended up on the phone with the guys at Calumet and that's what showed up.
I kept it for probably 3 years and then sold it as I didn't do much telephoto work and when I was shooting film, I shot mostly 100 speed and it was a tad slow for that unless I was in bright sunlight. I've been without it for about 2 years now and have had a number of primes and what not in between. I ordered a new one yesterday.
It's sharp, relatively inexpensive, fast (auto focus) and makes for a nice portrait lens especially. You can't really go wrong with it. The newer cameras' ISO performance is so great as of late that the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 can be solved by a slight bump in ISO. I'd get one. If you hate it, you can always sell it. They hold their value well. I remember selling mine 2 years ago for around $500 and I just bought one used for $500. Can't say that for many lenses.
I've had my 70-200F4 IS for 2 years now, and have owned 70-200 F2.8 lenses IS and non IS that came with used cameras. I still have the f$ IS, the others are gone.
They were very good lenses, but the usability of the F4 and its slightly sharper images make a big difference for me.
Where I need a faster lens, I've switched to primes. They blow away most zooms for less $$. Nothing has blown away the 70-200F4 though, it is generally comparable with the primes in its price range.
I love my f/4 IS, super sharp, super light, love the 4 stop IS. I've owned all of the 70-200's and LOVE the f/4 IS. Is even up there with my super sharp 135L and 35L.
