http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/canon/canon70200-front.gif (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082414canon70-200f4lens.asp)

Pre-Photokina 2006: The first of two new lenses from Canon is a image stabilized 'version' of the current EF 70-200 mm F4L. With this new stabilized lens Canon are boasting no less than 4 stops of stabilization (meaning you could use a shutter speed 4 stops/EVs slower than without it). Despite the addition of image stabilization the lens remains the same size as its non-stabilized sibling and is only slightly heavier. This lens should be available in November for $1250 (US).

If you were in the market for a 70-200mm "L Lens" will you get this?

i currently own an EF 70-200 F/4L USM, this is really a great lens and so far having this lens for almost a year it never lets me down. it is more amazing that the IS version has been realized, but for the price tag i'd rather have the non-IS version F/2.8 which is less than a $150 over the F/4 IS.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/canon/canon70200-front.gif (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082414canon70-200f4lens.asp)

Pre-Photokina 2006: The first of two new lenses from Canon is a image stabilized 'version' of the current EF 70-200 mm F4L. With this new stabilized lens Canon are boasting no less than 4 stops of stabilization (meaning you could use a shutter speed 4 stops/EVs slower than without it). Despite the addition of image stabilization the lens remains the same size as its non-stabilized sibling and is only slightly heavier. This lens should be available in November for $1250 (US).

If you were in the market for a 70-200mm "L Lens" will you get this?


John,

Yes, I am in the market for one. Well, maybe not now or in 6 months, but for sure, I want to close my main lineup before 2007 is over.

In dpreview, the only complaint of people against this lens is price. But as usual, it will go down by U$150-200 in 6-9 month's time, just like the 24-105L, ef-s 10-22, 17-55 IS, etc. So, I expect this thing to settle down to maybe U$1,050-1,100 on average. IF we are lucky, it will be in the U$1,000 range.

The question of whether it is "worth" it depends on the person. I will say one thing though. If you have IS, then with me, I can shoot 1/6-1/8 sec at 105mm on static subjects. I find that hard to do even with my 100 f2 usm at 1/30.

Now, you have an f4L IS version of the famous 70-200 f2.8L IS, for about U$450 lower price. My response to those saying it is too expensive is the same response I say to those buying the f2.8L IS version. That too is too expensive. And yet nobody complains about it anymore. They have accepted the fact that it is expensive and because of its optical qualities and performance track record, people have quietly accepted this price point. I guess, the f4L IS needs time to show it is "worth it" but in time, people will accept this price.

Will I buy one?

Most likely. To us over here, U$450 cheaper than the f2.8L IS is a LOT of money. That can buy you a 3rd party lens such as the tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-2 or the 28-75 f2.8 Di, or an 85mm f1.8 usm, or a 580ex flash give or take some change. So, the price difference between it's higher end brother is nothing to sneeze about. It's just that people see the U$580 of it's non-IS version vs it's price now.

If I were to get this lens though, it's not just it is cheaper by U$450 (or U$550-600 if it settles down eventually). I am getting it because it is smaller, lighter, and handy to carry and use. And because of the IS. As I said b4, that 2x price tag over the non-IS version may be too steep, but that is the difference between that and being able to shoot at 1/8 sec at 200mm and not being able to get that shot at that speed with the non-IS version. Now, my question is - is that extra U$550+ worth it to you?

To me it is. And though you get less bokeh at f4, once you hit 125mm-200mm, the f4 and f2.8 bokeh is going to be close, especially if the background is far and you are shooting near the subject. In fact, at around 100mm, the bokeh is already ok with my 24-105 f4L IS in my experience. I see no reason to say that it will be similar in this regards with this lens.

When shooting weddings, you have the confidence with this lens to shoot indoors because of the IS. Sure you can always use a monopod or tripod, but it does cramp one's style in movement inside churches. If you have IS, then that solves that.

To me, if f2.8 is really that important, then get the f2.8 version. But remember, that is going to hit you P95k over here. I expect this 4L IS version to be at P65k eventually over here. If the price of the 24-105L is any indication, it started at P75-78k, then went down to 72k, then 70k, then hovered a long time to 68k the longest. Now, I believe you can get it at P65k, some even at 62k. The same thing happened with the 10-22, and 17-55 IS. The price drop is significant enough for you to be able to buy an 430ex flash with the price difference. If it follows this same path, then I expect this to settle down in the U$65k range too. Now that is a better figure when you see that you are dealing with a P95k f2.8 IS version!

I believe there will be many takers of this lens in spite of the price. As I said, in the long run, the difference is not P37k (the non-IS version is around P38k) between this and the non-IS version. The difference is being able to shoot at 1/8-1/25 sec at 200mm and not being able to get the shot with the non-IS version. And that is why some people will buy it.

well said, mel!
i'm beginning to like them L lenses, so i started off w/ the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS (to go along w/ the 30D purchase). now i'm trying to sell my 28-135 IS and save add'l cash to buy me a walk-around lens w/ the 24-105 4.0 IS. though i wish it had the new 70-200 4.0 IS' 4 stops of firepower (never mind the mode 2 IS).

well said, mel!
i'm beginning to like them L lenses, so i started off w/ the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS (to go along w/ the 30D purchase). now i'm trying to sell my 28-135 IS and save add'l cash to buy me a walk-around lens w/ the 24-105 4.0 IS. though i wish it had the new 70-200 4.0 IS' 4 stops of firepower (never mind the mode 2 IS).

I'd pass on the 24-105 and try the EFS 10-22 first.

If you already have the fastest L zooms, why duplicate the focal length?

Watching John Chua lug around a 1D + 28-300 ALL afternoon made me realize, muscles are good upgrades both for your health and your love life he he he.

well said, mel!
i'm beginning to like them L lenses, so i started off w/ the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS (to go along w/ the 30D purchase). now i'm trying to sell my 28-135 IS and save add'l cash to buy me a walk-around lens w/ the 24-105 4.0 IS. though i wish it had the new 70-200 4.0 IS' 4 stops of firepower (never mind the mode 2 IS).


I agree with Dave D. on trying out the 10-22 first, before getting the 24-105L. My lineup is the 10-22, 24-105L, and the old 50-200 f3.5-4.5L. For weddings, I hardly use the 50-200. It's the 2 lenses I use often. You already have that covered. I find having a 24-70L and 24-105L too similar. But I won't 2nd guess your reasons. :)