While browsing through some PDF's i came across this lens
"70-200mm f/4 ultrasonicWhite glass canon"
Is this adifferentversion from the native 70-200 f/4 L IS USM?
I'm just curios..!
Printable View
While browsing through some PDF's i came across this lens
"70-200mm f/4 ultrasonicWhite glass canon"
Is this adifferentversion from the native 70-200 f/4 L IS USM?
I'm just curios..!
the difference btwn the 2 is image stablization. and several hundred dollars.
The 70-200 F4 IS also has an ass gasket.
There are now five different products from Canon in the 70-200mm L lens family:
70-200 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS
70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II
(I left off the L and USM initials, but they apply to all five lenses.)
Ignoring the Mark II, changing from f/4 to f/2.8 costs $500-600, and changing from non-IS to IS costs $500-600.
and of course the 2.8 IS is officially discontinued.
you think it's silly to buy the f/4 (either one, but prob the non-IS since it's "only" $600) if I already own the 2.8 IS?
I can't help but think of the times when a much lighter 70-200 zoom would be a real benefit - and all those times are outdoors in the daytime...walking around the city, shooting at the U.S. Open...
What holds me back is investing $ in the same focal range seems wasteful...esp when I'm trying to save for a T/S...
It's not so much that the 2.8 IS is so heavy, it's that the f/4 is soooo much lighter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by canoli
Is it? It's still listed on the Canon USA website, although it's not on some other country-specific websites (likewise, the 100mm non-L Macro is gone form the USA site, but still listed on other Canon sites).
Quote:
Originally Posted by canoli
I don't think it's silly, no. In fact, convenience is the main reason I recently bought theEF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DOIS USM even though I already have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII and the 100-400mm. As I just mentioned in another thread, I find myself bringing that lens along when I wouldn't/couldn't have brought one of the big white zooms. I also considered the 70-200mm f/4L IS, but my main concern was size, not weight, and even though 70-200mm f/4 is smaller than it's f/2.8 brother, the DO lens is nearly 3" shorter than the 70-200mm f/4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canoli
Yeah - it's all about priorities...at least my wishlist isn't as long as peety3's. [;)]
You're right, I was mistaken about it being "official." It's exactly the opposite (aka a "rumor"!). All the review sites I visit, including this one, list the 2.8 IS as "Discontinued" but there it is on Canon's site, apparently still part of their current lineup...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the DO. Buying that lens makes quite a bit of sense - unfortunately for me I can't justify spending that much on a 4.5-5.6 lens, even if it is the perfect size/weight for that focal range. Those diffractive optics don't come cheap I guess!
Quote:
Originally Posted by canoli
In fairness, although it is listed there and also in the Canon USA Direct online store, the store lists it as Out of Stock. I'm pretty sure Canon is no longer producing the lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canoli
Actually, I think it's the special <span style="color: #00ff7f;"]green paint they use for the ring around the barrel that accounts for the high relative price of the DO lenses. [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Haha I think that's it! Canon has a new proprietary formula that makes green paint without using blue or yellow pigment. The high-price is to prevent the script kiddies at Nikon from reverse engineering it and stealing market share!
So the thing is....... "IS" [:P]
70-200 f/4 L ultrasonic white glass is non-IS
and 70-200 f/4 L IS----is "IS" .......
if that is so what does this (ultrasonic white glass) do???
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvsavvy
It's got an ultrasonic motor for autofocus (that's the 'USM' in Canon's lingo), the lens is painted white (well, what Canon calls white, which isn't really white), and the optics are made of glass.
Or so I assume...