Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

[remyxsi]

Hi guys quick question. What do you guys think about this lens? I want to get a zoom lens and also L glass. I know it doesn't have IS, and it's not as fast as the f/2.8 but for the price I think it's a good deal. As of right now I only have the kit lens my XSI came with. I would probably use it mainly for outdoor shots.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830998379

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

Before I get flamed. I did search and didn't really find any helpfull advice on the subject. The posts were also relatively old.

 

[Overread]

My advice is that if you are after a lens like this wait and save a little longer to get the IS version - that will give you a very good L lens that will work hand held for a lot of the time - its well worth the little extra when you don't have to find a fence or tripod to get sharp clear shots. (especially as a lot of outdoors work can be quick stuff that won't wait for you to get out the tripod).
IS won't stop the subject blurr but will stop your handheld blurr and that is important.

Also with this lens you can (in time) get a 1.4 teleconverter to get a little more reach out of it with minimal loss of quality - a 2 times teleconverter might be stretching things a little far for the f4 in dimmer conditions though

 

[Buszaj]

I currently have this lens and I love it. Great for general sports, and still very good on cloudy days. For some longer sports you'll have to crop just a bit, but still very good results, quite sharp too.

 

[JimmyO]

I Have used this lens before. Its very solidly built and very smooth. I would personally wait until you have enough for the f/2.8 buts its up to you. If you shooting outside durrin the day you should be fine without IS or that fast aperture

 

[Jon0807]

I recently rented this lens as well as the 2.8 IS version. Like you I shoot outdoors but I also shoot indoors so I was sorely missing the IS and the 2.8. The 4 weighs about 100 pounds less than the 2.8 (or it just seems like it) and it's smaller. I also don't use a tri/mono-pod much but I know I really should. If you do then the non IS version will be fine.

For me, I need the the low light IS abilities of the 2.8 so I will eventually go with that. I just wish it were lighter as the 4 is.

 

[Dao]

This is one of the lens that I would like to get as well.

Just FYI, Adorama currently sell it cheaper than newegg and with free shipping.

http://www.adorama.com/CA702004AFU.html

 

[tim.bennett]

I have had this lens for a year now. Love it but i do sometime miss the speed of a F2.8 (my other lens is a f2.8 )
But the difference in weight is also pretty big.

I was actually looking at the sigma alternative. Also without IS but it is faster, It might be worth a look.

 

[250Gimp]

I have the f4 and think it is a great lense! I use it quite often with a 1.4x TC, but I use a monopod most of the time with it to, so the IS isn't as important.

One thing to remember is that you will probably be able to recoupe 85% of your investment if you sell it in good shape to upgrade at a later date.

 

[Village Idiot]

It's an amazing lens. I would personally not wait to purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L IS since it's $1000+ more and if you're not shooting where you won't need those specs, then you shouldn't spend the money.

I mean, it beats all of the craptastic 70-300's out there in IQ.