Thank You guys, got my new lens today...

I had my Canon 40D with 17-85 IS


50 f/1.4


and now...thanks to your advice, I am a proud, and a little giddy owner of brand new 70-200 f/4 IS.


I just snapped a few pictures outside and I am thrilled, just what I needed. Even this lens is heavy for me, so no way I could handle anything heavier for random walks, I would get carpal tunnel syndrome in no time. I am not saying it's a girly lens, but it fits me just fine, and I love it after just having it for half and hour. I am going out later on to take some picture to get acquainted with my new lens.


Thanks again to all of you for great advice [:D]

I also just acquired the same lens and it's fabulous... Enjoy...





[;)]

I got mine last year and it's great. If anyone ever makes fun of your *girly* lens, don't forget to put on the lens hood. That should change their tune.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdN

I got mine last year and it's great. If anyone ever makes fun of your *girly* lens, don't forget to put on the lens hood. That should change their tune.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

LOL, I do not mind, I am a girl. But it looks HUGE with the hood on. I just came back from the park and I love , love, love how it handles. And the pictures are razor sharp. Now I have the L disease. My credit card company will love me. [:)]

Heck, my credit card company better love me...my card spends more time out of my wallet than in it.

Congrats on the your new girly lens[;)] yes the f/4 version of the 70-200 family is girly, yeah I said it.[:P] j/k. Have fun and please share some images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdN

I got mine last year and it's great. If anyone ever makes fun of your *girly* lens, don't forget to put on the lens hood. That should change their tune.

---

LOL, I do not mind, I am a girl. But it looks HUGE with the hood on. I just came back from the park and I love , love, love how it handles. And the pictures are razor sharp. Now I have the L disease. My credit card company will love me. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

---

I was on the fence about the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 4.0 IS but decided to go with the 2.8 since I do a lot of inside low light stuff. It was tough though, due to the fact the 4.0 has better IQ.


I think it may be the last lens I buy. I really went L crazy over the last year. The only other lens I'm considering is 35 1.4L.


Enjoy your lens!

Nice lens... have fun! [H]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I think it may be the last lens I buy. I really went L crazy over the last year. The only other lens I'm considering is 35 1.4L.

---

I really like that lens, on either full frame or crop. I think that you need it [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I wason the fence about the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 4.0 IS but decided to go with the 2.8 since I do a lot of inside low light stuff. It was tough though, due to the fact the 4.0 has better IQ.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Is the IQ advantage of the f/4that significant? Comparing IS to IS or non-IS to non-IS, they aren't really THAT different in price, and I've been on the fence about it myself. I had just about decided that the IQ seemed to be nearly interchangeable at comparable apertures, with the 2.8 having the obvious advantage of larger apertures. IF the 70-200 f/4 really has distinguishably better IQ, I think I could just learn to live without the extra light gathering ability, and of course it is a little cheaper. I didn't get that impression distinctly when reading Brian's reviews, but maybe he was implying it and I was too dense to pick up on it. [:$]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I think it may be the last lens I buy. I really went L crazy over the last year. The only other lens I'm considering is 35 1.4L.

---

I really like that lens, on either full frame or crop. I think that you need it [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

---

Man, there goes another 1200 bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I wason the fence about the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 4.0 IS but decided to go with the 2.8 since I do a lot of inside low light stuff. It was tough though, due to the fact the 4.0 has better IQ.
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>

---

Is the IQ advantage of the f/4that significant? Comparing IS to IS or non-IS to non-IS, they aren't really THAT different in price, and I've been on the fence about it myself. I had just about decided that the IQ seemed to be nearly interchangeable at comparable apertures, with the 2.8 having the obvious advantage of larger apertures. IF the 70-200 f/4 really has distinguishably better IQ, I think I could just learn to live without the extra light gathering ability, and of course it is a little cheaper. I didn't get that impression distinctly when reading Brian's reviews, but maybe he was implying it and I was too dense to pick up on it.[img]/emoticons/emotion-10.gif[/img]

---

I think it is pretty close to a non-issue. Side-by-side comparisons on Bryan's ISO12233 charts, the 4.0 IS is ever-so-slightly sharper at similar f-stops. My advice to anyone would be, if money was not an issue, go with the 2.8 IS.