Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS next year or not ?

[ymages]

Canon gives 100 euros if one buy a 70-200 f/4 before the end of this year

do you think that a f/4 L IS version will come next year ?

it will good also for 77mm filter

 

half a question... half a dream :-)

[terry_smith2]

And they are also giving 150 euro back (seen in Chasseur d'Images for November) if you buy a D20 by the end of the year. Everyone is expecting the D20 to be replaced in March or April, so maybe your dream may come true. Good luck.

[ymages]

in that case I could wait :-)

[bobatkins]

Your choice may be between a $500 non-IS lens now and a $1000 IS lens next year. Which would you prefer?

 

Then again, most of Canon's lenses are currently in the (US) rebate scheme and so is the Digital Rebel XT, and few, if any, of them are likely to be replaced anytime soon.

 

There's no special rebate on the 70-200/4L is the US, so does that mean only Europe will get a new lens?

[ymages]

there is no rebate in US ?

there is also rebate for 17-40 f4 in europa

[ymages]

but 1000 for IS plus 77mm filter .. yes I shall buy it

[steve torelli]

Do you really think IS is worth a doubling of the price of the 70-200f/4? I get sharp pix with mine especially at 1/200 or 1/320 shutter speed.Adding IS would make this lens heavier and bulkier.In this case,I think adding IS would just be creating it's own need by doing so.The f/4 is a nice,light hand holdable lens as it is. When it starts to get dark, I bump up the ISO on my 20D and get great results.Good Luck.

[ky2]

IS is nice to have. But its nicer to have the 70-200/4L for $550.

[bobatkins]

<em>there is also rebate for 17-40 f4 in europa</em>

<p>

Oh no! That's being replaced too?

[andrew robertson]

NO.

[steve_dunn2]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EEXC">Same question, just a week ago</a>

[danny lee]

IMAGINE, it comes out to be the same price ? OMG ! 70-200 F4L IS $600.oo ! my heavens !

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the 70-200/2.8 is more useful than a 70-200/4 IS. And probably it doesn't make sense for Canon to produce four different L-series 70-200mm lenses. Nikon only makes a 80-200/2.8 non-VR and a 70-200/2.8 VR, no f/4 version.

[carl_weller]

Yes and half the Nikon shooters I know are extremely envious of the 70-200/4L, and the

17-40/4L for that matter.

 

Erick, nobody knows and canon hasn't started leaking anything yet, so its all just

conjecture.

 

As nice as IS would be, I agree with a lot the other posters - it 'aint worth doubling the

price of the 70-200/4L.

 

Then you are getting very close to f.28 IS territory.

[ilkka_nissila]

I wouldn't pay a lot of money for an f/4 lens below 300 mm. I need f/2 or f/2.8 too often to have a separate line of slow lens. If you do all your shooting from a tripod and only shoot still subjects then the f/4 zooms are a good choice, to reduce weight and save space.

 

I think of it like this: if you shoot hand-held, you probably are shooting a moving subject (Otherwise why shoot hand-held? You'd get better quality shooting a still subject using a tripod). Shooting a moving subjets you benefit from the f/2.8 aperture. Who then is the f/4 IS lens for? It's not ideal for still subjects since it would be more complex, larger, heavier than the non-IS f/4. It's not ideal for moving subjects since it doesn't stop motion like the f/2.8 lenses do.

[digitmstr]

>> Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS next year or not ?<<

 

Not! There is not going to be such a lens, ever...sorry.

[jnicholson]

My guess is that it would cut into the 2.8 IS sales too much. Unless, of course, they way over price it too.

[natureshots]

I bought this lens with the same rebate scheme almost a year ago. Canon seems to be doing the same rebate all over again. Almost a year and no IS version for it.

[John Crowe]

Sure looks like they have chosen to put out a crap lens in IS for consumers (70-300) to make a ton of dough instead. They would also rather not cut into the well established f2.8 IS L zoom market, which they also make more money on. Don't hold your breath for a 135mm f2 L IS or 200mm f2.8 L IS either.

[ymages]

yes but I feel the necessity of IS but not at all of 2.8 ... i am shooting nearlly all at f/8, f/11, IS is very practicle also for landscape

[bennyboy]

Wouldn't the 400 f/5.6 L be the best candidate for IS? They're as hard to get hold of as rocking horse 'poo' at the moment.

[mark_chappell]

<I> i am shooting nearlly all at f/8, f/11, IS is very practicle also for landscape</i><P>

 

For landscapes you will be better off with a tripod than with IS -- and I say that confidently

even though I'm a big fan of IS.

[ymages]

I have allways a tripod of course , but sometimes i like to walk just with a camera ..

[jon_austin]

Bob Atkins: "Your choice may be between a $500 non-IS lens now and a $1000 IS lens next year. Which would you prefer?"

 

I have a 70-200/4. I'd prefer an IS version. I'd pay $1,000 for one.

 

Giampi: There is not going to be such a lens, ever...sorry."

 

And how, exactly, do you know this? (Very reminiscent of the pre-5D chatter.)

[jim_larson1]

Hate to burst your bubble. . .there is simply no way a 70-200/4L-IS would be released for a cost under $1250.