Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens $559 + $11 GC + FS @Amazon

Quote from nanotube : (Nikon shooter here) Anyone know why this is so much cheaper than Nikon's 70-200mm f/4 VR ($1,400)? Aside from IS, is there any feature missing?

The Nikon was just released. Guess how much this or the IS version are when it is not Christmas and there's no big discount?

Nikon version of 70-200mm F4 is @ $1400!!!!

This is a good deal!!! (of course this might not be as good image quality as of $1400 one)

Quote from b534202 : The Nikon was just released. Guess how much this or the IS version are when it is not Christmas and there's no big discount?

The non-IS 70-200mm is still just about $700-ish normally. It's always much cheaper than the IS version and has been the cheapest L lens over the years.

This version has been proven to produce the softest images out of the group of canon 70-200's but its a good deal for an L lens none the less

Quote from myfathersajew : This version has been proven to produce the softest images out of the group of canon 70-200's but its a good deal for an L lens none the less

While "softest" is pretty relative. It still beats any of the slightly cheaper 70-200 and 70-300 lenses available by a long shot.

is this the same model as OP ?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon...&cp=1&lp=1

Quote from abhinkhanna : is this the same model as OP ? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon...&cp=1&lp=1

Yes it is

I can't believe this thread is not getting much love, this is definitely better deal than any that are out there currently.

just received my lens today

Quote from ToHellWithUGA : Obvious at this price, but, no IS. I have used the IS version, and love it - it's just MUCH more expensive. Not sure how much I would miss the IS. Very tempting, though. I've already spent way too much this year, and my wife would probably kill me if I got this, but...

It sounds like you don't own the IS version, so how could you possibly miss the IS. The lens is the non-is and performs outstanding within its capabilities. For those that can afford the IS version of either F4 or F2.8 versions, I have a feeling they aren't considering this lens anyway.

Quote from m3incorp : It sounds like you don't own the IS version, so how could you possibly miss the IS. The lens is the non-is and performs outstanding within its capabilities. For those that can afford the IS version of either F4 or F2.8 versions, I have a feeling they aren't considering this lens anyway.

Nope, you're right, I don't own it. I can just "borrow" it whenever I need it (father in law). I haven't used the non-IS version, I was just trying to figure out if I would miss the IS or not from the times I used it (if that makes sense). The times I have used the IS one were big outdoor sporting events, so I didn't really use IS anyway. But, if I owned it, I wonder what other times I would use it. I'm no professional (obviously), I just like to take good photos of my kids (in many different settings).

Quote from ToHellWithUGA : Nope, you're right, I don't own it. I can just "borrow" it whenever I need it (father in law). I haven't used the non-IS version, I was just trying to figure out if I would miss the IS or not from the times I used it (if that makes sense). The times I have used the IS one were big outdoor sporting events, so I didn't really use IS anyway. But, if I owned it, I wonder what other times I would use it. I'm no professional (obviously), I just like to take good photos of my kids (in many different settings).

I understand what you mean. Often people don't realize exactly what it is that IS does. I have a few lenses with IS and a few without. The ones without, give me just as nice pics as the ones with. I often find myself turning off IS but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want my IS lenses for the times I truly need the feature.

The deal is dead.