70-200 f4L vs. 70-200 f4L IS

Okay, so you just admitted you were completely wrong then? The F4 IS is far superior to the F4 for photo, end of argument. I'm not saying the F4 isn't a nice lens either, but when you look at sharpness, detail contrast it's heaps better. Have a nice day.

*Correction: I'm an arrogant fuck. "Pretentious" implies I fluff my argument in an attempt to sound like I know what I'm talking about, which is exactly what you're guilty of. The difference is that I know what I'm talking about. :)

And what's "ruining" m/a, as I stated originally, is kids like you who will jump on any opportunity to compare dick sizes and argue charts and graphs when they're completely irrelevant.

so you're shitting everywhere because you want to prove us wrong or something? seems like you should be putting your efforts elsewhere in life.

I like this thread hahahaha

2 pages and still no answer to my questions. hahaha

I (somewhat) answered your question in my first post, but was interrupted by a spontaneous cunt scuffle. Allow me to expand:

1. It's hard to tell how anything will perform with the ACE because it isn't out yet. I will say that even if it does end up being as stable as the FSB/Cine DSLR heads, you will still need a lens collar if you plan on pulling focus while filming (which you are required to do with EOS lenses due to lack of ground element). If the head is steady and you have a lens collar, but the image still shakes, then it means you need sturdier legs, which isn't surprising considering the price of the ACE package. Of course, this is all hypothetical at this point.

2. In my experience, the f/4 non-IS holds up fine in heavy snow/light rain. Any level of weathering beyond that would destroy your camera anyway (you wouldn't film raw dog in pissing rain because you lens is "sealed," would you?), so in my opinion the difference is marginal at best and does not justify upgrading by itself.

The only thing that would justify the price gap is if you REALLY want the extra stops of light, which I still don't understand for video applications since I shoot my f/4 with an ND filter at f/8 anyways (even in flat light). For lowlight/indoors I just use my fast 50mm because 70-200 is too far of a range for most interiors save arena football games.

I'm not pretending to know any more than I do. I'm AGREEING with you that you will not be able to see the difference between the 2 lenses in a video.

So you're criticizing me for stooping to your level? Now that I can agree with.

Dude give it a rest, everyone else knows you're wrong but you.

Sure, if phrasing it like that will make you happy. I was wrong in the first place to keep arguing with Honeylager when he's ignoring the data, and when our argument really has no relevance to the thread. But you're in no position to criticize our argument and the way I was posting because you're doing the exact same thing. If you're so quick to enter an argument like that, you're not "stooping", because you were never above it.

ITT: everyone is butthurt

.

>Question answered on first page
>2 pages of shit
>steezemonger is still trying

Good 'ol NS discussion.

You're still trying.