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.