Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

[CBownPhoto]

Yah always can't seem to save money for some reason. Always so many things I want to buy lol Your username seems total opposite of mine :cool:

I actually laughed at this out loud, and I'm not sure why. :lol:

[FMX]

nice pics all! I am considering this lens very (considerably? haha). I cant decide to go ahead and get this lens or save up for IS or 2.8 non IS. I am not willing to pay for the 2.8 IS. I will mostly be shooting outdoor sports.

[richierich1212]

LOL if my username was like the cartoon character I'd have all L lenses. But I have some bang-for-the-buck lenses instead.

[Mr.Sam82]

Here is another photo with this excellent lens! I love it :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2768/4327165667_3ccae4808c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsamsh/4327165667/)

[CBownPhoto]

Here is another photo with this excellent lens! I love it :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2768/4327165667_3ccae4808c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsamsh/4327165667/)

Beautiful. Such a great lens for crop bodies. Sharp photo!

[jbkalla]

So I guess it should take pretty decent portraits on a full-frame camera, right? Assuming I have plenty of light, of course!

[CBownPhoto]

So I guess it should take pretty decent portraits on a full-frame camera, right? Assuming I have plenty of light, of course!

Definitely. For not being a prime lens it's still remarkably sharp. I didn't really have much light for my portrait but f/4 is honestly enough if you have steady hands.

[Racer46]

Had to crop a little, but this lens did great at a track event

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2667/4129870090_1f1811ef48_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4129869344_99f1fd6dcc_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/4129102109_3be30ea271_o.jpg

Were these taken hand held?

I got this lens for track pics myself.

[Cosmo13]

Great lens for birding. Autofocus locks on instantly and stays locked on.

http://cosmodemonic.smugmug.com/Nature/Birds/Aborted-Landing/789177054_GpsMQ-L.jpg

[jm_usmc]

Were these taken hand held?

I got this lens for track pics myself.

Yes, these were hand held. I had quite a few pics that probably would have turned out much better with IS, but my keeper rate was still better than I anticipated.

At that track (Carolina Motorsports Park, Kershaw, SC) this lens was great for the close straight-aways, but corner 1 was a little too far away. If I could afford it I definitely would have wanted the 100-400 for track work.

[kaleano]

Some examples taken with 70-200 f4 non-IS. This lense is very sharp.

www.kaleanophoto.com/70200f4_1.jpg
www.kaleanophoto.com/70200f4_2.jpg

[FMX]

those are awesome but hilarious!!! its funny to see dogs "competing"

[JoeyBowman]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/4010335072_018da6b6a2_o.jpg

[Josepix]

Three seagull shots from yesterday. The last guy was pretty far away, so I had to crop heavily.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4333786185_c27daaa15a_o.jpg


Incredible the duck behind in the sky!!!

[Racer46]

Yes, these were hand held. I had quite a few pics that probably would have turned out much better with IS, but my keeper rate was still better than I anticipated.

At that track (Carolina Motorsports Park, Kershaw, SC) this lens was great for the close straight-aways, but corner 1 was a little too far away. If I could afford it I definitely would have wanted the 100-400 for track work.

Thank you for the info. I will have to wait for my first event to test this lens out! Of course I got a ton of new stuff for the racebike so now I gotta split time with riding the track and taking pics....:rolleyes:

[NYC2SOCAL]

Chinese New Year in Southern California

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4358324932_83a190c871_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4357575035_0c47edd056_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/4357568741_c345c2eab6_b.jpg

[FMX]

Incredible the duck behind in the sky!!!

wow that is interesting... nice eye.

[DaveH76]

Just ordered myself one, my first L glass. Looking forward to getting it tomorrow :)

[willy b]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/4010335072_018da6b6a2_o.jpg

Love this :D

[Shamir]

XTi baby =)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4353585771_6b4373ec64_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4353579147_01568d43a2_o.jpg

[dollei]

What the sky looked like today.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4380482027_2570e06e5c_o.jpg

[FMX]

Interesting.... the ground is a little underexposed but nice effect!

I ordered this lens on Sunday... hopefully I get it soon.

[jasongraaf]

If you shot it in raw it would be breeze to lighten up the foreground, with such a clean line between ground and sky...

[Roy Mathers]

Even if it's not in RAW, it should be a relatively easy job.

[Green Man]

Got my used one in the mail today and took some quick snap shots of the pooches...oh my what a difference a lens can make. I know we are not supposed to blame the tools but I think this lens will speed up my learning curve. There's a sharpness readily available that I was working hard for with the kit lens (18-55is).

[-AP-]

Does anyone have experience with this lens over the Sigma f2.8.. I am considering selling my Sigma for this lens and am not sure it's the best move.
I have a 7d and was hoping the High ISO handling can compensate for the loss of f-stop..

Yes/No????

Thanks..

[zelseman]

Does anyone have experience with this lens over the Sigma f2.8.. I am considering selling my Sigma for this lens and am not sure it's the best move.
I have a 7d and was hoping the High ISO handling can compensate for the loss of f-stop..

Yes/No????

Thanks..
It depends on what you shoot. For me(lots of indoor sports, lectures, pj stuff in low light) I could not use f/4. I owned the f/4L and loved every second of it, but it would not cut it for what I shoot. Also the background seperation between 2.8 and 4 is much better. I would not make the move back. I traded my f4L for a Sigma f/2.8 straight across, so I was happy.

[Treat me like a tourist]

Only a zoo shot, but as ever always impressed by the quality of this lens.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4388585930_dcd0f7c7d6_b.jpg

[mdaniel]

Kyle the Puggle loafing around on the couch this afternoon. 200mm @ f/4.

http://www.mdhmi.com/pics/dog/kyle/IMG_1593.jpg

[Green Man]

First walk in the park with the new lens:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4391159188_e23b6ee51a_b.jpg

[Racer46]

What the sky looked like today.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4380482027_2570e06e5c_o.jpg

Okay, noob question here. Was a filter used on the lens for this shot? If so what kind? Would a polarized lens filter be a good addition to make the sky in this shot have more color?

[drigo]

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4272/pelicanresized1.jpg

[hhockeyy]

These are some of the shots I took of Nadine with my 70-200mm.

[Methodical]

National Zoo

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p1049801379-4.jpg

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v10/p945319719-4.jpg

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p883006174-4.jpg

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p678311508-5.jpg

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p1050051339-5.jpg

[FMX]

just got the lens a few days ago!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4396156509_8cc0d3e730_o.jpg

[FMX]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/4401386005_fa4b1fcf07.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4401386337_411fc8f7fd_o.jpg

[GoHokiesGo]

National Zoo

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p1049801379-4.jpg

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/v10/p945319719-4.jpg



Love the color in these photos, this lens is one of the next on my list. Although the pictures were great, some of the other birds were pretty ugly, lol! :lol:

[[Hyuni]]

70-200 F4L, my macro lens :P
got a cheapie reversing ring for it
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2684/4403017940_dbe595b841.jpg
off camera flash with blue gel

[Methodical]

Yeah a face only a mother can love;)

...Although the pictures were great, some of the other birds were pretty ugly, lol! :lol:

[dollei]

Okay, noob question here. Was a filter used on the lens for this shot? If so what kind? Would a polarized lens filter be a good addition to make the sky in this shot have more color?

No filter used...just some PS to even out the sky and the ground. But to achieve it without photoshop, one would suggest a GND filter.


Picked this up yesterday :)

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3010/55528850.jpg

[willy b]

Nice shot!!

[versedmb]

f/4....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/799493971_DN9qW-XL.jpg


http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/799486847_GLsGZ-XL.jpg

[FMX]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4410081690_0b84e0fa39_b.jpg

[bitteraspects]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b126/bitteraspects/_MG_0392.jpg

[Cosmo13]

Shot with the 1d Classic.

http://cosmodemonic.smugmug.com/Nature/Birds/Breadsnatcher/805645967_mgD9U-L.jpg

[Cosmo13]

Which way to Worcester? ("Wusster" to you non-New Englanders).

http://cosmodemonic.smugmug.com/Humor/Humor/Confusion/805654215_xMRVj-L.jpg

[bitteraspects]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4416699448_f6692eff83_o.jpg

[GoHokiesGo]

Just purchased a copy of this lens from a local POTN member last night! It's my first L, can't wait to start shooting with it.

[Grider]

Just purchased 2 weeks ago..
One of the 1st real shot with it

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4421192808_0243758f90_o.jpg

[vitacura]

Just purchased a copy of this lens from a local POTN member last night! It's my first L, can't wait to start shooting with it.

Congrats! It's great lens, I have been really tempted to pick one up.

[JonK]

http://jonkensy.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/wild1.jpg

[Valencia Photography]

OK. Been on here for awhile trying to decide what to when I get rid of my 85mm. I think I maybe save up a bit more for this lens!!

[JTB4004]

OK. Been on here for awhile trying to decide what to when I get rid of my 85mm. I think I maybe save up a bit more for this lens!!

why u selling the 85, that lens is awesome

[Valencia Photography]

It's just not filling my needs. Whenever I mount it, it's either too long, or too short.

[jdlloyd67]

It's just not filling my needs. Whenever I mount it, it's either too long, or too short.
This is a good replacement for the 85mm although it will be big in comparison. Another lens you consider is the 60mm EF-s or the 50mm f/1.4.

[Viggen]

I'm very happy with this lens! Here are a few of my first shots with it.

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs435.ash1/24058_391588450700_607165700_5533024_4116190_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs435.ash1/24058_391588715700_607165700_5533047_4555578_n.jpg

[Pauly_G]

This lens never really disappoints, here are a few taken today in the late afternoon sun....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2783/4433078490_3138fd6f4a_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2744/4432303969_3afbcf4f0a_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4433077808_3365bb5bab_b.jpg

[tariktik]

I know this lens is too short to be a birding lens, but will this be any good for "backyard" birding? I am considering buying my first L lens for "backyard" bird photography and I am eyeing this one. I currently own an EF-S 55-250mm IS but am not really satisfied with the image quality. I still find the IQ lacking (though it might be caused by myself and not the lens).

I am constrained by lack of funds so any L lens above this price range is out of the question that's why, I need all your expert advice to determine if this is even worth buying for my intended purpose.

I would be very grateful to hear comments from people who uses this lens to take bird photos and would appreciate if they can include sample bird photos with the distance (from the EXIF data) of the subject and if I am not asking too much, a 100% crop.

Mind you that I am not an expert photographer but rather a beginner, still learning the ropes.

Thanks and please forgive me if this is not the right thread to post this topic.

Regards,
Eric

[costojanku]

Yes, it works perfectly for a backyard ornitophotography and distance up to, say, 50-70 m for larger birds. I bought myself 400 5.6 for birding and still find using the 70-200 much more. I won´t bother myself with crops, the lense doesn´t leave much to be desired in terms of IQ if you use it properly (most of these actually are 100% crops, but I usually shoot 4 Mpix only).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/4389867600_1cc00f0404_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4389868254_df3a91b01d_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4335482734_5b05166d46_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4333778355_1b044873a3_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2795/4361663923_bb9bab39e4_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4434993594_59d17b2659_b.jpg

[Valencia Photography]

Wow that last owl shot is amazing costojanku!!!

[tariktik]

Thanks costojanku! And I have to agree that the owl shot is amazing!

[malakite]

The owl photo is epic costo. If I had of taken it, it'd be framed and on my wall at home!

Our cat Meadow...
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4435741704_366fcc6634_b.jpg

[costojanku]

Thank you guys. It was taken during the weekend at the workshop - the owl was tamed and we had many many tries (it went for about half an hour). I am sure there were guys that took much better shots from the landing sequence than I did, so in the end it´s not such a big deal;)

[Roy Mathers]

I notice in your signature that you say you have a Tamron zoom 'on leave' - what does that mean?

[costojanku]

It was supposed to mean that I put an ad on it but it has not yet been sold (~ leaving). However, now I checked the exact meaning of the phrase in question and it appears to indicate something else (English is not my native language). If you confirm it is incorrect, I will change it, then.

Best,
c.

[Roy Mathers]

Thanks - I've never seen the expression used that way before.

[costojanku]

You are welcome (probably I should be the one thanking you). The profile has been updated.

[Cosmo13]

Yes, it works perfectly for a backyard ornitophotography and distance up to, say, 50-70 m for larger birds. I bought myself 400 5.6 for birding and still find using the 70-200 much more. I won´t bother myself with crops, the lense doesn´t leave much to be desired in terms of IQ if you use it properly (most of these actually are 100% crops, but I usually shoot 4 Mpix only).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/4389867600_1cc00f0404_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4389868254_df3a91b01d_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4335482734_5b05166d46_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4333778355_1b044873a3_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2795/4361663923_bb9bab39e4_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4434993594_59d17b2659_b.jpg
Love the owl shot. Just spectacular.

[bunyarra]

http://photosignals.smugmug.com/photos/810762618_5myUw-L.jpg

And who says the lens can't give lovely backgrounds :)
http://photosignals.smugmug.com/photos/810778175_fxHMQ-L.jpg

[kissel]

The wife, in the theatre

http://photofile.ru/photo/kissel.fotoplenka/150015943/large/158243310.jpg (http://photofile.ru/users/kissel.fotoplenka/150015943/158243310/)

http://photofile.ru/photo/kissel.fotoplenka/150015943/large/158243362.jpg (http://photofile.ru/users/kissel.fotoplenka/150015943/158243362/)

[RAW-Shooter]

I know this lens is too short to be a birding lens, but will this be any good for "backyard" birding? I am considering buying my first L lens for "backyard" bird photography and I am eyeing this one. I currently own an EF-S 55-250mm IS but am not really satisfied with the image quality. I still find the IQ lacking (though it might be caused by myself and not the lens).

I am constrained by lack of funds so any L lens above this price range is out of the question that's why, I need all your expert advice to determine if this is even worth buying for my intended purpose.

I would be very grateful to hear comments from people who uses this lens to take bird photos and would appreciate if they can include sample bird photos with the distance (from the EXIF data) of the subject and if I am not asking too much, a 100% crop.

Mind you that I am not an expert photographer but rather a beginner, still learning the ropes.

Thanks and please forgive me if this is not the right thread to post this topic.

Regards,
Eric


The lens is not too short, really, shorter than your 55-250 though. Better image quality - most likely. FYI, Canon Exif does not contain subject distance. This is one of the few things I really like to see one day. Even my first digital camera, a Casio, back in 2000 had that feature.
You should consider renting the lens for a week and see how you like it.

[RAW-Shooter]

Two more:

[tariktik]

Thanks a lot RAW-Shooter for the sample photos. When you say "Better image quality - most likely", does that mean that the IQ of the 55-250mm IS is almost the same as the 70-200mm L? (Not taking account my beginner skills. :D)

Oh by the way, there is an Exif field named "Subject Distance" where you can see the distance in meters of your subject. This is not visible in DPP or ZoomBrowser EX but if you are using Adobe Bridge, it is there. The data is accurate but I noticed that for far subjects, especially BIF's, the distance is set at 4294967295.0m instead of infinity. I'm just not sure if the old EOS cameras and lenses support it.

Anyway, thanks again for your input. Would love to see more of your photos.


Best regards,
Eric

[Roy Mathers]

I find that the subject distance in metres is also shown in Lightroom. However, it is only shown in some photos, not all. Can anyone explain why this should be?

[RAW-Shooter]

Thanks a lot RAW-Shooter for the sample photos. When you say "Better image quality - most likely", does that mean that the IQ of the 55-250mm IS is almost the same as the 70-200mm L? (Not taking account my beginner skills. :D)

Oh by the way, there is an Exif field named "Subject Distance" where you can see the distance in meters of your subject. This is not visible in DPP or ZoomBrowser EX but if you are using Adobe Bridge, it is there. The data is accurate but I noticed that for far subjects, especially BIF's, the distance is set at 4294967295.0m instead of infinity. I'm just not sure if the old EOS cameras and lenses support it.

Anyway, thanks again for your input. Would love to see more of your photos.


Best regards,
Eric

Well, I never had the 55-250, so I cannot say really what this lens is capable of. It has IS, which my 70-200 does not have. However, most people will agree that the 70-200 (all four flavors) are super sharp, even wide open at 200mm. I know mine is superb.

Personally, I would always prefer an "L" over (almost) any other lens. When I got my first "L" I was immediately blown away by sharpness and colour right off the camera. Mind you, I am talking about the 100-300 "L", which I still own - that lens is 23 years old!!
Actually it would be really interesting to compare that 100-300 to the 55-250...


Regarding Subject Distance: Holy cow, this is a great tip. Thanks for that. POTN is great, isn't it?

I have Bridge for quite a while, tested it - but did not use it - never noticed that it displays that data. So I stand corrected, the data is there but the vast number of software manufacturers have decided not to display it. Even Adobe is inconsistent within their product line. Makes me scratch my head...

My SmugMug is under construction, but some of my stuff is up there: http://raw-shooter.smugmug.com/

Have fun.

[misty66]

Misty

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5281/5274145644_9212d124fe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56977249@N08/5274145644/)
come on mu,...open that door. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56977249@N08/5274145644/) by Photography by Jalomist (http://www.flickr.com/people/56977249@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5273538759_55b882ede2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56977249@N08/5273538759/)
Let me in please (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56977249@N08/5273538759/) by Photography by Jalomist (http://www.flickr.com/people/56977249@N08/), on Flickr

[RAW-Shooter]

I find that the subject distance in metres is also shown in Lightroom. However, it is only shown in some photos, not all. Can anyone explain why this should be?

This is a $60M question...
I just checked. I don't see it in LR 2.5, however, it looks as if it's in LR3, which should be released soon.

[Roy Mathers]

I've since discovered it was introduced in LR2.6 so it explains why some pics (post upgrade) have it and some (pre-upgrade) don't.

[RAW-Shooter]

I've since discovered it was introduced in LR2.6 so it explains why some pics (post upgrade) have it and some (pre-upgrade) don't.


That explains it. Just about two weeks from now LR3 will be released. That's why I did not bother with version 2.6

[Roy Mathers]

That explains it. Just about two weeks from now LR3 will be released. That's why I did not bother with version 2.6


How do you know?

[tariktik]

Hello RAW-Shooter,

Thanks for the link to your Smugmug gallery. I like your "in our backyard" bird shots. Makes me want to get the 70-200mm L and sell my 55-250mm IS. But, I might rent the lens first to see if I can manage without IS. Haven't tried a non-IS lens yet as I am just beginning photography.


Best regards,
Eric

[RAW-Shooter]

How do you know?

LR3 beta expires 04/01 - Adobe rarely missed a dead line.
Blame it on me, if they can't make it...;)

[RAW-Shooter]

Hello RAW-Shooter,

Thanks for the link to your Smugmug gallery. I like your "in our backyard" bird shots. Makes me want to get the 70-200mm L and sell my 55-250mm IS. But, I might rent the lens first to see if I can manage without IS. Haven't tried a non-IS lens yet as I am just beginning photography.


Best regards,
Eric

Thanks Eric. Renting the lens first is a good idea, given the fact that the 70-200 lenses are not really cheap. I bought mine 2nd hand for that very reason and I couldn't be happier.

If you keep the shutter speed up, you'll be fine even without IS. For those lower light situations I am glad to have the 200 f/2.8, which is about the same price as the 70-200 f/4.

[cccc]

I didn't realize how much smaller this lens was compared to the 2.8 Much happier with this on my XSI.

These are from today - it is the lens' first day out with me. I think I gave it a nice break in.

http://e.imagehost.org/0481/IMG_4536_copy.jpg
messed up the contrast in this one in post.
http://d.imagehost.org/0631/IMG_4527_copy.jpg

[Cosmo13]

I'm thinking of buying a converter for this lens to use with the EOS 1D classic. Any recommendations? Things to stay away from? Can any converter be used with this lens or are there restrictions? I'll probably get a 1.4, since I've been unimpressed with a 2x converter (Kenko) used with Minolta-Sony lenses. Should I stick with the Canon converter, or are there third-party brands you would recommend? Thanks for your help.

[jdlloyd67]

The summer can't get here soon enough!!! Here's a shot I dug up from last year's visit to Ponce Inlet Beach.

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/misc/Sierra3_small.jpg

[dollei]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4442553566_7f80642d14.jpg

Rest of the set on flickr! http://www.flickr.com/photos/dollei/

[J.Litton]

Would this be a good lens for a beginner ? Everyone I have talked to seems to say IS is a must, but there is an obvious huge price jump with IS.

I was thinking of buying a T2i kit, and use this as my primary lens since it is so versatile, and pick up a Sigma 150-500 for my wildlife/birding shots further away.

[jdlloyd67]

Would this be a good lens for a beginner ? Everyone I have talked to seems to say IS is a must, but there is an obvious huge price jump with IS.

I was thinking of buying a T2i kit, and use this as my primary lens since it is so versatile, and pick up a Sigma 150-500 for my wildlife/birding shots further away.
Its a fine lens for a beginner. It was one of my first purchases when I got into photography. I still have it today and don't plan to upgrade anytime soon.

[jasongraaf]

It's fine as a beginner lens, but know what you're getting. 70-200 on a crop body is the equivelent of 112-320mm on a fullframe. That's way too long to easily be a walk-around lens. Personally, I didn't like this focal range on a crop body. It was was always too long or too short. I found it better on a 1.3x body and awesome on a full frame.

This lens is also relatively small maximum aperture. To get the best out of this lens, it has to be pretty bright. I've found that a dark, cloudy day is where this lens starts to reach it's limits for me.

If you can work around this factors though, you will get some fantastic photos.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4355593210_9c0a74be6b_b.jpg

[RAW-Shooter]

Would this be a good lens for a beginner ? Everyone I have talked to seems to say IS is a must, but there is an obvious huge price jump with IS.

I was thinking of buying a T2i kit, and use this as my primary lens since it is so versatile, and pick up a Sigma 150-500 for my wildlife/birding shots further away.

YES! IS is not a must. You live in FL, like me, light is never an issue unless it's a record winter like this year...:mad:

However, I would never buy a kit again - body only - and throw the money towards a better lens than the kit lens. Consider a nifty-fifty for those situations where f/4 is not enough or 70mm is to long.

F/4 is not as bad, unless you don't have steady hands. Breathing technique helps or something to lean against. I can honetly say that I missed a shot due to my own stupidity much more often than due to missing IS.

Cheers.

[dollei]

Would this be a good lens for a beginner ? Everyone I have talked to seems to say IS is a must, but there is an obvious huge price jump with IS.

I was thinking of buying a T2i kit, and use this as my primary lens since it is so versatile, and pick up a Sigma 150-500 for my wildlife/birding shots further away.
I'd rather get the 2.8 non IS than the f4 IS.

[Cosmo13]

Hey, that's my water.

http://cosmodemonic.smugmug.com/Nature/Birds/Gulls-drinking-on-roof/814121209_YSeww-L.jpg

[yagit80]

http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww316/wdybt/IMG_9933.jpg
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww316/wdybt/IMG_9939.jpg

[Pauly_G]

Signs of spring from the UK

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2766/4449660021_206fef2fd9_b.jpg

[Disturbed UTT]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2729/4452554110_64a96f1d83_b.jpg

[jdlloyd67]

Two from Saturday...

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/misc/DisneyMagic2.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/misc/Lyn_032010_2sm.jpg

[S2K.OGRAPHY]

woooooooohooooooooooooooo i just ordered it omfgggggggggggggggg i cant waittttttttttttttttt :D

[J.Litton]

YES! IS is not a must. You live in FL, like me, light is never an issue unless it's a record winter like this year...:mad:

However, I would never buy a kit again - body only - and throw the money towards a better lens than the kit lens. Consider a nifty-fifty for those situations where f/4 is not enough or 70mm is to long.

F/4 is not as bad, unless you don't have steady hands. Breathing technique helps or something to lean against. I can honetly say that I missed a shot due to my own stupidity much more often than due to missing IS.

Cheers.

Thanks for the response!

I just cannot decide if buying this lens is worth it. I dont want to spend a ton of money on this hobby. I cant decide if I should buy this, or save the money and buy the 100-400 L with IS.

[MarineManiac]

LUNCH! veggies over white rice with anejo enchilado

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2799/4454251121_02ddf1a52b_b.jpg

[j0sh818]

Days before Spring

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2741/4426172884_70681009fe_b.jpg

[j0sh818]

Another photo taken with this lens

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2751/4438952907_48810955aa_o.jpg

[Cotmweasel]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4455575096_d448047324_b.jpg

[pinoyplaya]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4444018427_63fab04ea7_b.jpg
Shot with my Canon T1i and the 70-200mm f/4L Lens @ f/9.5; ISO 100; 1/60 SP;

[dollei]

Shot a few Lexus today:

1
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2788/4457683895_25d528c5ab_o.jpg

2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4457683809_c98ee8efa6_o.jpg

3
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4457683747_4ccf6baf1d_o.jpg

4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4458462504_07069ce95d_o.jpg

[ckfishel2001]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4459310475_7b9d7ac226_b.jpg

[yeow_Z]

my share
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4459222662_03baab9f20_o.jpg

[Cotmweasel]

my share

Very nice, pretty model too. :)

[J.Litton]

would this be a good wildlife lens if I put one of the magnification extenders on it?

[jdlloyd67]

Not a bad psuedo macro lens...

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/misc/BumbleBee1_small.jpg

[mofasho]

What's a good utility to watermark my images, like many of you use.

[kissel]

would this be a good wildlife lens if I put one of the magnification extenders on it?

It would, but keep in mind that with many 2x extenders you will not be able to use AF. Some of them will work just fine though (check here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922). No such problem with 1.4x extenders, since the maximum aperture will remain under f/8.

[longsight]

What's a good utility to watermark my images, like many of you use.

I make a brush up in CS4.Once you've done a couple they are quite easy to do.

[ckfishel2001]

I make a brush up in CS4.Once you've done a couple they are quite easy to do.

or elements if you're cheap like me:)

[Methodical]

Me too. When you create one save it as a psd file. when editing you canopen it and drag and drop on your photo and size as you see fit. I created mine via Scott Kelby PSE6 book. I have a few of them.

or elements if you're cheap like me:)

[Roy Mathers]

How do you get the transparency in a pdf file?

[J.Litton]

It would, but keep in mind that with many 2x extenders you will not be able to use AF. Some of them will work just fine though (check here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922). No such problem with 1.4x extenders, since the maximum aperture will remain under f/8.

I am just trying to find the most cost effective way to have a better zoom lens than the 55-250 I am using now

[kissel]

I am just trying to find the most cost effective way to have a better zoom lens than the 55-250 I am using now

70-300IS USM may be an option, or may be take a look at Sigma 70-200/2.8, it should work just fine with 2x extenders.
I don't have a TC yet, but it's one of the priorities for the near future. 70-200/4L with 1.4x TC produces very decent pictures, from what i saw here in the forum, almost no difference with the lens without TC. With 2x you should expect a more significant drop in IQ, though it'd still be very good. So far I really like 7-elements Kenko 2x converter, seems like 70-200/4 will work just fine with it (AF, i mean).

[Methodical]

Not sure of the ?

How do you get the transparency in a pdf file?

[AprilArchambeau]

I see gorgeous pictures of birds, cars, people, and everything else! So obviously it is not THAT big of a deal to be able to hold it still and not have IS, I worry my hands shaking will ruin images, but these are images from the non IS version correct?

[misty66]

Yes these are from the non is. So far if I have to I use a mono......

[AprilArchambeau]

Yea I will be fine as far as the actions shots I assume, but I don't want to have to cart any extra equipment with me, but its SO much more for the IS version, decisions decisions :(

[S2K.OGRAPHY]

i rented it first to make sure i could live without IS, and i can :D

[longsight]

I got the non Is version yesterday.

It's stonkingly sharp even at f4' its my first white lens so it was a bit of a shock when it came and it was like an off white:oops:

I also ordered a NON Canon tripod mount ring.

The pic below was a test shot iso1000 on a 50d just resized in CS4 for the web.

439635

[J.Litton]

70-300IS USM may be an option, or may be take a look at Sigma 70-200/2.8, it should work just fine with 2x extenders.
I don't have a TC yet, but it's one of the priorities for the near future. 70-200/4L with 1.4x TC produces very decent pictures, from what i saw here in the forum, almost no difference with the lens without TC. With 2x you should expect a more significant drop in IQ, though it'd still be very good. So far I really like 7-elements Kenko 2x converter, seems like 70-200/4 will work just fine with it (AF, i mean).

If im going to pay $799 for the Sigma, I would just pay the extra $200 and get the 150-500 :D

I was thinking that with this lenses awesomeness and L quality, it wouldn't be a noticeable dip in IQ going to a TC to give it a bit of extra distance

[Methodical]

The 150-500 has OS (IS). I agree just add the $200 and get it; reach baby reach. Did you setup any perches or blinds yet? If I'd be using the lens for zoo animals etc, then the 70-200 would be cool, but you want to get birds, so the 150-500 would better suit you. The 150-500 gets good reviews. I think you will be disappointed with the 70-200 for bird photography...I know cause I have the Canon 70-200 and it's nowhere near long enough for birds. I have the 300 f4 and for birds I always had the 1.4 attached to it to get me to 400mm.

If im going to pay $799 for the Sigma, I would just pay the extra $200 and get the 150-500 :D

I was thinking that with this lenses awesomeness and L quality, it wouldn't be a noticeable dip in IQ going to a TC to give it a bit of extra distance

[J.Litton]

The 150-500 has OS (IS). I'd strongly consider adding the $200 for it; reach baby reach. Did you setup any perches or blinds yet?

Yes I sure have. The tree limb idea is working great. I really dont need to setup the blind with them since I can shoot from my spare bedroom and be in the shade. I moved the feeders close and in a more direct path of the sun, and shooting angle. I guess in theory, this lens would work better than the 55-250 because I can get better IQ, and with a higher pixel camera now that I have my T2i, I should be able to just crop the zoom difference right?

[S2K.OGRAPHY]

went out and shot about 130 pics with this bad boy at a local park today. here are some ducks, and a cat

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/443/img0893d.jpg

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9016/img0855a.jpg

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5530/img0880j.jpg

[deadie]

Spring is in the air...

Sweet pea buds coming up
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8528/dpp0572.jpg

Got my toms going
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7467/dpp0573.jpg

And my "volunteer" poppies from last year!
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2209/dpp0575.jpg

[pinoyplaya]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2738/4477968646_3ca88d9dd6_b.jpg

Did an ISO test on my 7D indoor shooting with the 70-200mm f/4L. There wasn't a lot of light and it was right next to the window so it made it even more difficult to capture the shot. No flash used. :)

[castaneda]

http://www.castanedaphotography.com/panning1.jpg

http://www.castanedaphotography.com/panning2.jpg

http://www.castanedaphotography.com/panning3.jpg

http://www.castanedaphotography.com/panning4.jpg

http://www.castanedaphotography.com/panning5.jpg

[bitteraspects]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4031/4478647518_81cce7d36f.jpg

[ckfishel2001]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4478446315_2c07b98e06_o.jpg

[castaneda]

http://www.castanedaphotograpy.com/jrgitten.jpg

[ckfishel2001]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4478446341_cd61e2fe13_o.jpg

[willy b]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4486715415_0d61c46a93.jpg

[longsight]

Two from yesterday.Male and female bullfinch's so i'm told.

Female Bullfinch
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4492857794_8e54d5762a_o.jpg

Male Bullfinch
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2773/4492857686_41ac16aebc_o.jpg

[willy b]

Good shots Martin.

Few more:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/4486759595_5bdaeccac2.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4490192317_d57e188739.jpg

[hz536n]

Canon 5D hand held backyard Tulips

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4493584382_bc5c9ac95a_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4489009258_466c738607_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4491414029_0e8ea2cf25_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2692/4491790510_8340cf5e84_b.jpg

[Pauly_G]

One from Saturday

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4494541954_5f3ca71c69_b.jpg

[AprilArchambeau]

Were these taken with the 70-200? I should hopefully be getting one within the next 2 weeks :)

Two from yesterday.Male and female bullfinch's so i'm told.

Female Bullfinch
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4492857794_8e54d5762a_o.jpg

Male Bullfinch
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2773/4492857686_41ac16aebc_o.jpg

[longsight]

Were these taken with the 70-200? I should hopefully be getting one within the next 2 weeks :)

Yeah took them yesterday with the f4 non IS;)

[DrPablo]

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60886246.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60886252.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60886258.jpg

[Madweasel]

Two from yesterday.Male and female bullfinch's so i'm told.


Very nice shots, but they're chaffinches. Enjoy the lens!

[longsight]

Very nice shots, but they're chaffinches. Enjoy the lens!

Thanks Mark .I was told they were bullfinch's thanks for the correction;)

[ckfishel2001]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4478446245_ba12e0ccc5_o.jpg

[tariktik]

Wow! How I wish I can take photos like these.

Now, I'm really drooling to buy this lens.


Regards,
Eric



Two from yesterday.Male and female bullfinch's so i'm told.

Female Bullfinch
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4492857794_8e54d5762a_o.jpg

Male Bullfinch
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2773/4492857686_41ac16aebc_o.jpg

[malakite]

Adelaide Zoo (all taken @f4)
1.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4488683711_5f961af322_b.jpg
2.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2725/4489250236_7743b66ab1_b.jpg
3.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2792/4488652359_deb86b0122_b.jpg
4.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4488637929_527caf0581_b.jpg

[hz536n]

Canon 5D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2730/4495223647_1d66d20877_b.jpg

[marky201]

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn244/marky201/circuit%20of%20ireland%202010/IMG_5798.jpg