I finally gave up the 70-300 IS USM

TaDa

And I could not be happier with my choice of going with the 70-200 f/4. What an absolutely amazing piece of glass. When I had my 24-70, I quickly understood why folks started to lean towards L glass, but the 24-70 and 70-200 are in completely different categories when it comes to image quality. The 70-200 is a pleasure to use, images are amazing before being post processed, and at nearly half the weight of the 24-70, much easier to carry around. I'm probably going to trade my 70-200 for the f/4 IS since there are times where I definitely need to lean on IS like a crutch, but I can definitely see why the 70-200 family gets so many positive reviews. Amazing. :lust

Thanks for reading my little commentary

claudermilk

Welcom to the club.

dlplumer

TaDa wrote:

And I could not be happier with my choice of going with the 70-200 f/4. What an absolutely amazing piece of glass. When I had my 24-70, I quickly understood why folks started to lean towards L glass, but the 24-70 and 70-200 are in completely different categories when it comes to image quality. The 70-200 is a pleasure to use, images are amazing before being post processed, and at nearly half the weight of the 24-70, much easier to carry around. I'm probably going to trade my 70-200 for the f/4 IS since there are times where I definitely need to lean on IS like a crutch, but I can definitely see why the 70-200 family gets so many positive reviews. Amazing.

Thanks for reading my little commentary

I just put a 1.4 on my 70-200 and took these today:

jgoetz4

Good Morning & congrats
I had 2 different (Canon) 70-200 2.8 lenses, and while both were very good wide open, they still were not as sharp or contrasty as my 4.0 version, wide open. From the reviews (and images) that I've seen, the 4.0 IS version is even sharper then the non IS version. The MTF numbers seem to jump off the chart. Enjoy your lens
Have a good day
Jim...

eyusuf

i actually sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy 70-300 IS

jgoetz4

eyusuf wrote:

i actually sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy 70-300 IS

Good Afternoon,
Nothing wrong with that move if you need the extra reach Some reviews refer to the 70-300 IS as a 'hidden L' lens because of the flourite element that it uses. I enjoy the consistant sharpness & contrast at 4.0 @ 200mm, and of course, the light weight
Have a good afternoon
Jim...

TaDa

eyusuf wrote:

i actually sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy 70-300 IS

The 70-300 is a fantastic lens. For me, the major reasons to go with the 70-2 were USM and Full Time Manual focus. For that, I gave up an extra 100mm of reach and IS.

I think that the colors out of the 70-2 are amazing though. 70-3 is very good, but the 70-2 are just in a different level.

Unfortunately, this is going to get more expensive as I'm used to the IS and am going to have to upgrade to the f/4 IS as soon as I get the funds from selling my 70-3.

Mike02

TaDa wrote:

And I could not be happier with my choice of going with the 70-200 f/4. What an absolutely amazing piece of glass. When I had my 24-70, I quickly understood why folks started to lean towards L glass, but the 24-70 and 70-200 are in completely different categories when it comes to image quality. The 70-200 is a pleasure to use, images are amazing before being post processed, and at nearly half the weight of the 24-70, much easier to carry around. I'm probably going to trade my 70-200 for the f/4 IS since there are times where I definitely need to lean on IS like a crutch, but I can definitely see why the 70-200 family gets so many positive reviews. Amazing.

Thanks for reading my little commentary

Congrats.

TaDa

Sold my non-IS this morning. With that money, took it and the funds from the sale of the 70-300, and drove to Connecticut. Bought a new f/4 IS and should have it shipped to my house by tomorrow afternoon. It's hell having taken test shots with it in the store, and then having to give it back to them to ship it to me. Is it tomorrow yet?