L-len users .....Please HELP I am using the canon 18-200mm and wanted to buy the canon 70-200 L len but don't understand why there is such a dramatic diffrent in price and all got great reviews.
Canon 70-200mm
F4.0 USM $675
F4 IS USM 1249 Is $574 just for the IS or something else?
F2.8 USM 1400 is $725 just for the F2.8?
F2.8 IS USM 2400 $1725 for F2.8 IS or $1000 just for IS from F2.8

I don't understand. What is canon doing here? Charging $1000 just for IS. Is everybody STUPID or am I not seeing something here? Looking at all the users review, everyone of this len got great feedback. I am confused, please help.
asked by Hung on October 31, 2011
Sort: Most Helpful first | Newest first | Oldest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 answers
A
6
votes
Charles and Xavier are right on target. Canon does make several similar lenses at various price points to target different markets. The humble 50mm prime comes in three flavors priced at 100, 400 and 1500 dollars. Is it worth 300 more for the .4 aperture gain, continuous focusing, larger focus ring, USM and smoother bokeh even though MTF scores show a slight advantage towards the "nifty 50"? I think so and use the 50mm f1.4 constantly. Is it worth another 1100 for a .2 aperture gain, sharp focus at the lowest aperture and even more solid construction? I do not think so but many other professionals swear by it. On the other hand I purchased the more expensive 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS and NO my pictures are not "crappy" at 200mm since I use a monopod or tripod in low light) because 1.)in the studio the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is HUGE for artistic effect, 2.)faster apertures can capture action in lower light, 3.)it accepts the 1.4x and 2x extenders which saved me the weight and expense of a 400mm lens for wildlife shots. Sure it would be great if Canon introduced IS into their bodies as Sony has done. On the other hand I would not currently consider buying a Sony with integrated IS because they have such a poor selection of lenses and the available selection is not priced to convice me otherwise. So back to the original question as to why an array of similar lenses with a hefty span of prices all got great reviews.... Simply put it is because they are all excellent lenses at the top of the professional quality pyramid. Canon does not force anyone to buy their premium lenses and many third party lenses are available to help consumers cast their "dollar votes". After testing the Canon and Tamron 180mm macro lenses I could find no IQ reason to spend over twice the money for the Canon. The Tamron is also much lighter to carry and has a great exterior ring to rotate a CP filter while the hood is in place. User reviews are helpful with any photography purchase but the money is in the final product. Before buying any lens check out sites like flikr or pbase to see what others have done with the same product. This method convinced me to instead buy a delightful vintage Tair-11 135mm manual focus lens while researching the Canon 135mm f/2L at 5x the price. There are many options available so don't get frustrated or feel trapped into the Canon name. Thanks for checking the ramblings of this "L"-coholic shutterbug.
Donovan X answered on November 7, 2011

A
2
votes
IS is for Image Stablization and in most cases save the use of a tripod, you'll get sharper images. Your going to pay for the "L" which is Canons elite line Luxury lenses. It's there best glass and the lenses are much heavier but they are better. If your going for Video, the f/4 is good enough. If you are a photographer the f/2.8 may be better. If you are going to do both, the f2.8 seems to be the choice. You can always go with Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 for 1399.00. I hear it rivals Canons 70-200 f2.8. I own the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and It's awesome. Great color, sharp and I plan on getting Sigma's 70-200 f2/8 later myself. Hope this helps.
Charles C. Seay answered on November 1, 2011

A
3
votes
What you see is what you get. F2.8 is "better" and costs more than F4.0. The IS is "better" and cost more than non-IS. Is the extra cost worth it? I don't know -- that is for each person to decide, depending on what you want to use it for. For me photography is a hobby and I got the "cheap" F4.0, no IS. This lens is more than good enough for my purposes, at least for now. The money I "save" compared to the F2.8 can be used for something else such as another lens or college tuition for my daughter. I haven't decided yet :)
Xavier Ascanio answered on November 1, 2011

A
-2
votes
My question really is "Why is there $1000 different between the canon 70-200 f2.8 USM and the Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM IS?" Both are L-lens with pretty much the same built. The only different is "IS". Most other lens, IS come at no extra cost. All canon kit lens come with IS including their 18-200mm len. Why then is their elite line luxury lenses we have to pay an extra $1000 just for IS. You know and I know that without IS, at 200mm zoom your picture is going to be crappy. People who buy the non IS will eventually buy the IS version = 2 sales for Canon. I like to see everyone boycott Canon and voice your opinion.
Hung answered on November 1, 2011
‹ Previous   1   Next ›

ARRAY(0x9f7b33a8)