About a telezoom lens.

[tayoo2k]

I've decided to buy a telezoom lens for my D30.
Has anyone own EF 70-200 f/4 ?
I think it is affordable for me. but I would like to know how it's worth.

I own 24-85 that has 67 mm fiter size same as one above.

[DWerner]

This is THE lens that you want. The Canon 70-200 L f4 and its equally sharp faster sibling (the 70-200 2.8) might possibly be the finest zooms Canon (or anyone else) has ever made. It is incredibly sharp all across the range. Has superb color and contrast characteristics and is much handier than the much larger and much more expensive 2.8. I have also read that it works quite well with Canon’s tele-converters (though I have no experience with those).

I’ve come over to the Canon SLR system after almost 35 years of Nikon F’s. I never liked zooms much and have a strong bias for Prime lenses. Even my D30 kit has only one zoom (the 70-200 L f4). It beat two of the finest lenses ever made, a Nikkor 180 2.8 and a Nikkor 105 2.5 in a direct comparison with all three, in turn mounted on my D30 (there actually is an Nikon adapter, though manual diaphragm only).

As the 70-200 L f4 is currently selling in the US for $650 less a $100 Canon rebate ($550 with shade and case included!) this should not be a difficult decision… AND since in your case the lens is the perfect extension of your current zoom range it really can’t be beat.

How's that for a level headed and unemotional evaluation? (!)

[boBquincy]

I bought the 55-200 (bear with me here) knowing it is an inexpensive lens with not-so-great perfomance. I looked at the MTF curves on Canon's website and saw the 55-200 was pretty good up to 14mm, the corner of the D30 frame. For a full-frame 35mm film camera this lens would probably be pretty poor.

Also, B&H has them on sale for $100.


boB

[oops]

I also have the 70-200 f/4 but don't have much experience with it as yet. It was, however, rated 4.1 at Fotodo.com which is a very, very good rating by people who don't cut no slack.

[Ken Neb]

I just tried the Canon 28-200 f3.5-5.6 USM. It is GREAT! I was concern about its AF ability in low light situations, it performed wonderfully. The price is right when compare with the 70-200 2.8L. Try it., you will like it. Ken

[PEKA]

I preferred the 4.o / 70-200L over the f2.8
It is half the weight and half the size, less than half the prize and the images are superb.
For my eyes the quality is equal to the f2.8.

You can see a few shots with it here:

http://www.optik-kappel.de/see/index.htm

Buy it, you won't regret it.

[bnsfr]

Ken Neb wrote:
I just tried the Canon 28-200 f3.5-5.6 USM. It is GREAT! I was concern about its AF ability in low light situations, it performed wonderfully. The price is right when compare with the 70-200 2.8L. Try it., you will like it. Ken

Ken, have you tried it indoors for action shots, like sports? I am debating what lens to purchase, and want to know if the 3.5 to 5.6 will work, or if I need 2.8. Love to hear your thoughts

[bnsfr]

Ken Neb wrote:
I just tried the Canon 28-200 f3.5-5.6 USM. It is GREAT! I was concern about its AF ability in low light situations, it performed wonderfully. The price is right when compare with the 70-200 2.8L. Try it., you will like it. Ken

Ken, have you tried it indoors for action shots, like sports? I am debating what lens to purchase, and want to know if the 3.5 to 5.6 will work, or if I need 2.8. Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

[Ken Neb]

Hi, bnsfr, I ordered both 28-200 f3.5-5.6 and 70-200 f2.8L from B&H comparison and will only keep one. Although I am still in the preliminary stage of my comparison, I have found some real surprising and interesting facts.

Before I present to my findings, let me give you my circumstances so you will understand why my evaluation of the lenses are specifically geared towards my needs. I only shoot portrait and glamour portfolios for aspiring models and actors/actress in my studio with studio strobe lights. I also shoot only digital (Canon D30) and my output is nearly 100% for the model/actor’s websites (very little print work). Although I have shot over 12,000 digital images with a Nikon Coolpix 990, I am fairly new to the world of 35mm photography and D30. However, I believe I am a fast learner. After reading tons of threads about the lackluster AF performance of the D30, I was convinced that in my poorly lit studio, I would have problems with any consumer grade lens (i.e. 28-200 f3.5-5.6).

Here are my findings so far:

AF:
I was pleasingly surprised that I was able to AF with both lenses at 1/8 setting of my modeling lights (two lights at 100W each). That is 25W only, no wonder my studio is dim. Both lenses lock-on quickly, however, I did notice that if the subject has little/no contrast, I had no “lock-on” with F3.5-5.6 and the 2.8L will AF without any problem. BTW, I am not using ST-E2 or my 550EX to assist in AF in either case. By practice “Focusing On and Off-Center Subject” (page 62 of D30 menu), I was able to AF the f3.5-5.6 lens to the nearest subject with more contrast and re-compose the shot by holing the shutter button halfway down. This was only a minor inconvenience for me. However, I can see this may be a major reason for a sports photographer to purchase the faster lens.


Sharpness:
From my inexperienced eyes, shooting at f8 (recommended by Chuck Westfall) as best f-stop to evaluate the lenses, I brought both pics from each lens to PS6 looking at them at 100%, I can not tell any difference at all. This may vary due to the monitor being able to only display the images at 72 PPI only. I was told by Chuck that if I compare the 8X10 prints, I would able to see the differences clearly. For my needs (web work), it showed practically no difference.

Magnification:
This is the most surprising finding of all. The images at 200mm are significantly different for each lens. In fact, the magnification of the 200mm of the f3.5-5.6 lens is similar to 135mm of the 2.8L lens. I have done two sets of test shots over two days where the D30 is sitting on a tripod with the same exact settings (full zoom at 200mm, LFine, same f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, lighting source, same photographer…same everything), yet the images of the 200mm is not the same between the lenses. For the expensive pro 2.8L lens, you get more zoom. I have photos if anyone wishes to see the differences just email me. I don’t know how to post them in this posting.

On Monday, I am shooting a live model. I will conduct further test and report back to the forum my results. I am hoping to see a significant difference in AF speed when working with a live model and maybe the skin tone will be much better with the F2.8L lens. I am seeking excuses to justify keeping this very expensive professional f2.8L lens.

So far, I am leaning toward the 28-200 f3.5-5.6 lens. I love the lightweight, the compactness, the zoom range, less lens change in a session, oh yeh, the ease of the pocket book. Although the f2.8L is professional looking and quite impressive to a novice like me.


Ken