Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

[Jan Jasinski]

Just bought one, date coded from 2011. Amazing lens, love the feel, build, quality and how it comes with a lens hood lol.

[Seventeen Nineteen]

Just got this...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6579142833_817de814e8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579142833/)
Madelena (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579142833/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6579133121_3cfca70d6f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579133121/)
Zipper (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579133121/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6579115115_052fe5e9e5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579115115/)
IMG_5334.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579115115/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6579139283_519c2e1935_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579139283/)
Something Over There... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579139283/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

[Ingerson"PCD"]

Here's a couple from mine.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7149/6577793081_590926b40e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6577793081/)
IMG_5325-9 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6577793081/) by Ingerson"PCD" (http://www.flickr.com/people/ingerson/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6577632101_2b1258af2c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6577632101/)
IMG_5549-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6577632101/) by Ingerson"PCD" (http://www.flickr.com/people/ingerson/), on Flickr

[mattymx]

Lookin good Eric!

[Ingerson"PCD"]

Lookin good Eric!

Thanks Matty. I've been having a blast shooting at the track, but it sucks having sold my bikes. :lol:

[mattymx]

Thanks Matty. I've been having a blast shooting at the track, but it sucks having sold my bikes. :lol:


I hear ya. Sold all mine and miss them too.

[Viva-photography]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7169/6591269859_55078daa27_b.jpg

I've owned this lens for a long time. Very sharp. Great for portraits.

[oklaiss]

I've done my research and have finally decided to order my first L lens. Mine should be arriving on friday :D

[Ingerson"PCD"]

I've done my research and have finally decided to order my first L lens. Mine should be arriving on friday :D

Congrats! I see you're already claiming it in your sig. :lol:

[bonkatomicpunch]

I got a killer deal on this lens off of Craigslist from a guy selling all his gear to pay for Christmas presents for his daughter. The guy was great and if I ever become a famous photographer some day (way way down the line) I hope I can track him down and pay him more in thanks :P

I shot hockey (often through the dirty dirty glass around the rink) with it last night. The lens performed less than admirably when I used it to shoot roller derby (I chalk it up to awful lighting) but it did really great under the bright lights of the Huntington Center. I was very very pleased. It catches colors nicely and when it's not shooting through protective glass it's really really crisp.

Through dirty glass.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6592154893_239734f646_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6592154893/)
Knocked dwn (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6592154893/) by crybabycry (http://www.flickr.com/people/bonkatomicpunch/), on Flickr

Through dirty glass.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6592156477_ffd66e3d59_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6592156477/)
DiDomenico (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6592156477/) by crybabycry (http://www.flickr.com/people/bonkatomicpunch/), on Flickr

Through the dirtiest glass ever (next to the away team's bench)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7156/6592253319_54f699e92b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6592253319/)
DiDiomete (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6592253319/) by crybabycry (http://www.flickr.com/people/bonkatomicpunch/), on Flickr

Shot from just below the top of the stands, over the glass.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6586669111_c97302fa91_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6586669111/)
Victors (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonkatomicpunch/6586669111/) by crybabycry (http://www.flickr.com/people/bonkatomicpunch/), on Flickr

[Ingerson"PCD"]

Fantastic work for F4 in those conditions.

[Hash Jazz]

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM + Canon EF Extender 1.4x MarkII
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6512/img6850z.jpg
7D 215mm 1/800s f6.3 ISO 250

[joelfun96]

Double posted. Sorry

[joelfun96]

@bonkatomicpunch

Great shots and great username! (Tf2?)
Just wondering, how much did you get it for? Thanks!

[bonkatomicpunch]

@bonkatomicpunch

Great shots and great username! (Tf2?)
Just wondering, how much did you get it for? Thanks!

Thanks so much! (Yep, TF2 it is!)

I got it for $350, along with some other gear as well.

[Sirrith]

A heavily cropped snapshot, was playing tennis, had just grabbed my camera to try and get some sports shots, and heard this guy flying low overhead, didn't have to time change settings, so was shot in AV at 1/3200 (with fill flash :lol:), which means no blade blur at all :(

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6593718427_7d398ab0e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6593718427/)
1112281 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6593718427/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

[Jan Jasinski]

Testing out my new sharp 70-200 f/4L, sure is a sharp lens!:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7023/6597073927_8068d9522f_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6597073129_261c2d2f75_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6597071757_f6a0c42292_b.jpg

[joelfun96]

Testing out my new sharp 70-200 f/4L, sure is a sharp lens!:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7023/6597073927_8068d9522f_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6597073129_261c2d2f75_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6597071757_f6a0c42292_b.jpg

Really nice the 3rd photo!

[jamaio]

From a recent trip to the Zoo

Shutter Speed: 1/320 second
Aperture: ƒ/4
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 188 mm


http://johnmaiorana.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v39/p17481472-4.jpg

[vivala1210]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/6523822455_ca5fe4ebb6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reflexivephotography/6523822455/)
Stephanie Fantauzzi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reflexivephotography/6523822455/) by martin L photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reflexivephotography/), on Flickr

[jamaio]

Another from the Zoo

Shutter Speed: 1/320 second
Aperture: ƒ/4
ISO: 3200
Focal Length: 75 mm


http://johnmaiorana.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v19/p289380707-4.jpg

[Sirrith]

Some from today's hiking:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6612953925_a73bbefffb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612953925/)
1201011 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612953925/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6612921965_d0d8180e7d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612921965/)
1201012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612921965/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6612922569_74e936988c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612922569/)
1201013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612922569/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6612923131_f3feaeab55_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612923131/)
1201015 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612923131/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

[arch.cm]

^^ Cool shots!

[Martin.D]

The Old Tree (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/6641065455/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6641065455_dab1cb7af4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/6641065455/)

[charlemagne]

Some from today's hiking:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6612953925_a73bbefffb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612953925/)
1201011 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612953925/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6612921965_d0d8180e7d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612921965/)
1201012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612921965/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6612922569_74e936988c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612922569/)
1201013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612922569/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6612923131_f3feaeab55_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612923131/)
1201015 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6612923131/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

love the last one!
ch.

[jamaio]

I love this lens!!!

One from yesterday in New Orleans SOOC

The rest of the set can be seen here New Orleans (http://johnmaiorana.com)

Shutter Speed: 1/30 second
Aperture: ƒ/4
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 70 mm


http://johnmaiorana.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v32/p995143875-4.jpg

[Sirrith]

love the last one!
ch.

^^ Cool shots!
Thanks :)

Here's a panorama taken with it:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7156/6645606537_752f10b877_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6645606537/)
peak panorama (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6645606537/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

[jeroenw]

I went to the zoo last week to have a nice day with my two daughters... Not a lot of time for photography because they specially liked the playground.

Great fl on a crop (60D) for taking pictures in the zoo... The lynx is at ISO1600. All wide open.

1
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6622472833_2f1e0e0466_o.jpg
2
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6622587339_050b08f7fa_o.jpg
3
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7168/6621435777_7960a01a5f_o.jpg

[Anthrax15]

Just recieved mine. Still honing my balancing skills for lack of IS.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6663150315_8198e16f9f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthrax15/6663150315/)
IMG_2989 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthrax15/6663150315/) by Anthrax15 (http://www.flickr.com/people/anthrax15/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6663148905_ed336fd965_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthrax15/6663148905/)
IMG_3209 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthrax15/6663148905/) by Anthrax15 (http://www.flickr.com/people/anthrax15/), on Flickr

[Martin.D]

Natural Depression - 2 [Explored #374] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/6654942365/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6654942365_a712fdc51b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/6654942365/)

[stanik_sk]

Just recieved 5m cable shutter, tested it right away

[Jan Jasinski]

Stunning shot ^^ !

[troy!]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/troysrikok/396173_787759393644_194308549_36195948_269952632_n .jpg

[Sirrith]

w/ Kenko 1.4x
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6658297131_406d99185c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6658297131/)
1201081 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6658297131/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

[Ten Ounce]

I just got mine earlier this week. Plan on contributing to this thread real soon! :cool:

[DarkBoxPhotography]

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s11/v35/p912870666-5.jpg

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s11/v27/p393829470-4.jpg

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s11/v36/p67761610-4.jpg

[T2i4me]

w/ Kenko 1.4x
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6658297131_406d99185c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6658297131/)
1201081 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6658297131/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

Ooooooooo nice!

[phant0mv87]

any of you using this lens for indoor events/parties?

i am going to be using bounce flash
haven't tried shooting with an f/4 before.. just wondering if i'll be okay?

5dc

[RafaPolit]

Phantom, I see you have a full frame, so the 70mm end might work for portraits... But don't plan to include more than one head on the frame with this lens unless the party is in a large museum or similar. Also f4 would yield severely thin DoF on your 5d, so focus is going to be tricky.

I wouldn't go to this lens for indoor shots in small spaces... Lack of IS may prove even more difficult on those conditions also, but that is just me.

[dmnelson]

I agree with Rafa's comments. I feel the DOF at f/4 is great for shooting one person but it could be tough with more if they are not on a plane perpendicular to the camera. Below is an example of what you can expect. It's from a FF body at f/4 and 140mm.

On the other hand f/4 indoors without IS could make it tough to avoid blur, unless you really crank up the ISO. It all depends on how good the lighting is and whether you use a flash (which could be a bit difficult from a distance, depending on what you use.)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3210/5757519840_aebe143ab2_z.jpg

[phant0mv87]

thanks for your responses rafa and dmnelson

i'll be second shooting and they wanted more of the candid type of shots and expressions
i probably wont be using it all night
i was just wondering how focus would be and stuff

flash will be used. bounced with joe demb bounce card

does this make any difference in your responses?

[Jan Jasinski]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6695940293_c9076b0c32_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6695940899_160fa82a78_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6695941569_1d846988e7_b.jpg

[zyzz]

To those that have experienced both, is the IS essential and does it make a big difference?

[Jan Jasinski]

To those that have experienced both, is the IS essential and does it make a big difference?
Unless your shooting 1/20 and below you don't need it. Of course everyone would like it but if you are struggling to afford IS then just don't bother.

[Supertac]

To those that have experienced both, is the IS essential and does it make a big difference?

Good to see you on here. Good guy right here.

[zyzz]

Unless your shooting 1/20 and below you don't need it. Of course everyone would like it but if you are struggling to afford IS then just don't bother.

Cool thanks for your reply, is there a big difference if I was to go below 1/20?

Good to see you on here. Good guy right here.

Cheers brah right back at you :)

[Jan Jasinski]

Cool thanks for your reply, is there a big difference if I was to go below 1/20?
Oh yea! IS does help in low light situations but remember your only at f/4 so your shots wouldn't be not blurry at 1/6 or something. It was possible with the 55-250 but the 70-200 f/4L is a bit heavier and pretty impossible to handhold at such lower speeds.

So it really depends on you, if you want the 4 stop stabilization and the weather sealing get the IS version, if you can't afford it or don't need get the non IS and maybe even add a 1.4 Extender.

[zyzz]

Oh yea! IS does help in low light situations but remember your only at f/4 so your shots wouldn't be not blurry at 1/6 or something. It was possible with the 55-250 but the 70-200 f/4L is a bit heavier and pretty impossible to handhold at such lower speeds.

So it really depends on you, if you want the 4 stop stabilization and the weather sealing get the IS version, if you can't afford it or don't need get the non IS and maybe even add a 1.4 Extender.

Thanks for the reply! Id mainly be using it for airplanes/sports though so below 1/20 or 1/6 as I've read wouldn't be that big of an issue! :) seems the IS wouldnt be that necessary and I could save a couple hundred bucks

[Jan Jasinski]

Thanks for the reply! Id mainly be using it for airplanes/sports though so below 1/20 or 1/6 as I've read wouldn't be that big of an issue! :) seems the IS wouldnt be that necessary and I could save a couple hundred bucks
I shoot Aviation ;) .
So far no problems except for those night shots, but those are intense lol. You need sever practice no matter what lens you use.

[zyzz]

I shoot Aviation ;) .
So far no problems except for those night shots, but those are intense lol. You need sever practice no matter what lens you use.

Yes I've seen some :O blown my mind, keep it up!

[Sirrith]

To those that have experienced both, is the IS essential and does it make a big difference?

I've had both and now I have the non-IS. IS is not essential to me at these focal lengths, and I don't really miss it much, I'm much happier with the $600 odd I've saved from returning the IS, which allowed me to buy a very nice CF tripod and still have money left over, which is far more useful than IS could ever be.

[dmnelson]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6712490085_27e6a34132_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/6712490085/)
Anthony & Annalise (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/6712490085/) by davidmnelson (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmnelson/), on Flickr

[RafaPolit]

Friends,

Ever since buying this lens, I have wanted to go to our zoo and have watched in amazement your own pictures of zoos all around the world posted here. Well, this weekend I was finally able to go and try out the lens. I can tell you it was interesting working with it, although the ultra-thin depth of field combined with relatively low light at certain points and the fact that you can't actually instruct the animal to stand still made for quite a challenge in certain places!

My biggest complaint is not for the lens though, but for our local zoo's approach at cage-building and scenario-staging. It was near impossible to not include damaged and poorly kept cage-bars and, when I could do it, the background was busy with metal doors or plastic food trays... very un-flattering look.

At any rates, it was fun to take advantage of the longer reach and superb quality of this lens, here are a few images:

http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_05960a293afd9f1698698a47a57ec115.jpg
Jaguar (Panthera onca) (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=200&ln=2)


http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_bdc1d9bd59ee813e186167225819d582.jpg
Tucán, a close-up (Ramphastos tucanus) (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=196&ln=2)


http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_8b3fd0c5ab896bb38ac63c1ea51f2220.jpg
Monos Ardilla (Saimiri sciureus) (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=193&ln=2)


http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_c40429398dc21ebe8faaee5d87b19b72.jpg
Tigrillo (Leopardus pardalis) (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=194&ln=2)


http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_443497ad1525db223556ca223fd1d37f.jpg
Jailed Machín!(Cebus albifrons or Cebus apella, not sure) (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=195&ln=2)


http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_756875d506f3bacfc6e4981bb169b667.jpg
Tucán (Ramphastos tucanus) (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=197&ln=2)


Hope you fellows enjoy them! As always, critique and comments are all welcome!

Best regards,
Rafa.

[arch.cm]

^^Awesome pics! Great detail!

[TallZXDriver]

Looking at picking one of these us to replace the kit lense that came with my 60D. Would this be a good choice as a general purpose lense or are there better ones out there? I guess the best question would be if you could only have one lense would this be it? I plan on buying more lenses in the distant future but really just need a quality lense to replace/use in conjunction with the kit lense while I learn exactly what I am doing.

Still trying to decide if the IS is worth it to me or not. I would like to comfortably be able to shoot indoors and in lower light.

[dmnelson]

Looking at picking one of these us to replace the kit lense that came with my 60D. Would this be a good choice as a general purpose lense or are there better ones out there?

The 70-200mm f/4L is great but it's not a replacement for the kit lens. This is a telephoto lens, 70mm at its widest, which means it's good for close-ups or zooming in on subjects at a distance. You would still want to hold onto the kit lens, though, not ditch it until you get another wide lens.

I guess the best question would be if you could only have one lense would this be it? I plan on buying more lenses in the distant future but really just need a quality lense to replace/use in conjunction with the kit lense while I learn exactly what I am doing.

That question really depends on what you like to shoot. For some people yes, for others no. I use my 70-200 a lot but I would not pick it as my only lens.

Still trying to decide if the IS is worth it to me or not. I would like to comfortably be able to shoot indoors and in lower light.

This lens can be challenging to shoot with indoors, both because you can't zoom wide enough in a small room, and because lighting is often sub-par. In some places like a trade show at a large, well-lit convention center, it would probably do fine. In your house, not so much.

[TallZXDriver]

The kit lense is a EF-S 18-135 IS I am thinking of getting the EF-S 55-250 IS to complement it until I figure out exactly what I like to shoot since that should give me a pretty good range at an affordable price, then I can spend more money on lenses that complement what I like to shoot at a later time.

[RafaPolit]

^^Awesome pics! Great detail!
Thanks very much Arch!! Your words are much appreciated.

Rafa.

[RafaPolit]

The kit lense is a EF-S 18-135 IS I am thinking of getting the EF-S 55-250 IS to complement it until I figure out exactly what I like to shoot since that should give me a pretty good range at an affordable price, then I can spend more money on lenses that complement what I like to shoot at a later time.
TallZDriver, I'd like to echo the words above: this is MOST DEFINATELY NOT a general purpose all around lens!!! This lens on your camera would almost be useless indoor in any place but a large hall or the likes. In a regular apartment not only would you be faming only the eyes or nose of people at the wider 70mm, but what is even more complicated is that you have 1.2 meters (4 feet) of minimal focusing distance, so, anything closer would be out of focus.

To put things in perspective, set your kit lens' zoom to 70mm and walk around the house and see what you see. This lens is great for portraits, outdoor pictures, for isolating subjects, and many other picture styles that you can browse on the pictures in this very thread... But I would never even consider it as a good all around lens.

Your kit lens is actually one of the more versatile, or the 15-85, or the kit lenses in the 18-55 range or even the 17-55, another interesting option could be the 24-105. In short, i believe it's easier to not have the longer range than it is not having the wider range. I think you'd better move to a lens like the 15-85 (fantastic quality!) and then purchase this, which would compliment the range nicely.

That's just my point of view though. I'm sure there are people who's walk around lens is the 100-400! Best regards,
Rafa.

[Sirrith]

Looking at picking one of these us to replace the kit lense that came with my 60D. Would this be a good choice as a general purpose lense or are there better ones out there? I guess the best question would be if you could only have one lense would this be it? I plan on buying more lenses in the distant future but really just need a quality lense to replace/use in conjunction with the kit lense while I learn exactly what I am doing.

Still trying to decide if the IS is worth it to me or not. I would like to comfortably be able to shoot indoors and in lower light.

Replace? No. Use in conjunction with? Yes.

Use as my only lens? Heck no.

[GoHokiesGo]

I spent the holidays in Budapest and wandered around a few evenings with the camera. Beautiful city with several great vantage points!

Chain Bridge - Grahams Palace - St Stephen's Basilica
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3QpC_MmhTwA/TxIrqoT89LI/AAAAAAAAKng/tiMVYXOfMMo/s1024/IMG_1260.jpg

Shoes on the Danube - WWII Memorial
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-g3Emz7tXObc/TxIsEU9tgRI/AAAAAAAAKqY/rYgVCengvXE/s1024/IMG_1450.JPG

National Gallery and Chain Bridge
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-2ZXZHEKS5UA/TxIsVh88T6I/AAAAAAAAKr4/uyePYD7pj7c/s1024/IMG_1801.JPG

Matthias Church and Fisherman's Bastion - this is probably the sharpest night shot I've taken before, still super sharp at full resolution.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RiSkp1hpcKE/TxIsVfU_7iI/AAAAAAAAKr0/QKD7sTvZnrw/s1024/IMG_1799.JPG

[mkallstrom]

Road bicycle race from last summer (taken with 50D):
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6709603607_12f4ceb65c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkallstrom/6709603607/)

[Ten Ounce]

http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g410/ten_ounce/SB%20Da%20Anomoly/denied.jpg

[TallZXDriver]

After I couldnt decide one came up on craigslist locally. Guys said he only ever took like 25 pictures with it and I believe it, the thing looks flawless. I paid $450 for it so I figure if it works out to where I dont use it or I dont like it I can easily sell it for my money back at least.

[dakana]

I get a TON of use out of mine

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7148/6734014273_8774796955_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickkneer/6734014273/in/photostream)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7003/6733968853_0dd7c009ee_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickkneer/6733968853/in/photostream)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6421904643_90e79f91dc_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickkneer/6421904643/in/photostream)

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6048/6281310712_41fb2b6cae_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickkneer/6281310712/in/photostream)

[stanik_sk]

One from today's walk.. I've met a lady with her dog.. This lens is worth of every penny!

I especially find very useful this 70-200 range on FF. With wide angle lens like 17-40 this is a great choice for reasonable money

[Peter2516]

nice pics guys...

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss130/rutlian/1201_sunriseandeagle_117-Edit.jpg

[arch.cm]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6769299221_c0fffd3bef_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6769299213_71450460f7_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7028/6769299219_f6cc85727b_z.jpg

[Jan Jasinski]

Just another boring winter afternoon...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7023/6777717145_96a20a8cd7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6777717145/)
Untitled | Gulfstream Aerospace G200 | N878DN | CYOW (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6777717145/) by Jan Jasinski (http://www.flickr.com/people/janjasinski/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6777717861_13e3991718_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6777717861/)
Bearskin Airlines | Fairchild SA-227DC Metro 23 | C-GJVC | CYOW (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6777717861/) by Jan Jasinski (http://www.flickr.com/people/janjasinski/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7167/6777718525_7cda9122c5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6777718525/)
CYOW (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6777718525/) by Jan Jasinski (http://www.flickr.com/people/janjasinski/), on Flickr

[OrangeImaging]

After having bought this lense, would any of you go back and spend the extra $ for the 2.8, or the IS?

[arch.cm]

^^ I think the IS would be worth it, I do notice it when it gets a little dark.

[OrangeImaging]

I had this lense previously, and sold it. My longest focal length is 85mm, and I'd like a little more reach even if it won't be my most used lense.

Sigh, why does glass have to be so damned expensive? In a perfect world, food, water, shelter, and art supplies would be government supplied...... :(

[arch.cm]

The IS is twice as much, but the image quality is suppose to be better as well from what I've seen on POTN. Yeap, it's an expensive, but addictive hobby!

[meno222]

my son after their loss in rugby
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/meno222/rugby%202012/7E3B8221.jpg

[DarkBoxPhotography]

After having bought this lense, would any of you go back and spend the extra $ for the 2.8, or the IS?

I have this one for few years now, if I had the money at the moment, I'd swap it for 2.8

[Sirrith]

I went from the f4 IS to this because the IS wasn't worth the extra $600 to me. IQ difference between the 2 is negligible, the IS is better, but only when pixel peeping, not worth taking into consideration IMO.
I wouldn't upgrade to the 2.8 because of the weight.

[dexy101]

I only had the f4 non is

Here is a shot from it, plenty sharp.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6783074199_74e5483fd4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/derekmackinnon/6783074199/)
Another cow. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/derekmackinnon/6783074199/) by Derek Mackinnon (http://www.flickr.com/people/derekmackinnon/), on Flickr

[oklaiss]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6768445815_6cac7285a9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/5dc/6768445815/)
IMG_1834 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/5dc/6768445815/) by Owen Klaiss (http://www.flickr.com/people/5dc/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6768420699_69401d4e8f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/5dc/6768420699/)
IMG_1902 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/5dc/6768420699/) by Owen Klaiss (http://www.flickr.com/people/5dc/), on Flickr

[Mookalafalas]

After having bought this lense, would any of you go back and spend the extra $ for the 2.8, or the IS?

I bought the 2.8 Mark II a couple of months ago. It's a great lens, obviously, but I regret having bought it now. It is definitely NOT 3X better than this lens. Shooting at 2.8 is great of course (and the stop of better bokeh), but other than that, there isn't much real difference...

[Sirrith]

Don't think I've posted this here yet:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6645607375_71cccdc60e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6645607375/)
1201053 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noobography/6645607375/) by noobographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noobography/), on Flickr

[Jan Jasinski]

Nice one ^^ . The bokeh is just lovely for a f/4 glass.

[RafaPolit]

I bought the 2.8 Mark II a couple of months ago. It's a great lens, obviously, but I regret having bought it now. It is definitely NOT 3X better than this lens. Shooting at 2.8 is great of course (and the stop of better bokeh), but other than that, there isn't much real difference...
Al, I was surprised reading this... How about IS? I'm sure that having one extra full stop of light plus the ability to avoid camera blur at 1/60th and above instead of requiring 1/250th at the longer end makes it a lens that can e used on many more shooting conditions!

The better bokeh is another, more subtle issue, but the non-is f4 lens does suffer from a doubled background at certain apertures and distances (like the new 70-300L as well), while the mII doesn't.

Of course, the price difference is very serious, but, now that you have spent the money, you regret it?

Best regards,
Rafa.

[RAW-Shooter]

... the non-is f4 lens does suffer from a doubled background at certain apertures and distances ...

Best regards,
Rafa.

Really? Can you prove that claim? I have yet to see one of those pictures.

[DarkBoxPhotography]

Same as my mood today, dark and nasty...

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s11/v36/p245883082-4.jpg

[DarkBoxPhotography]

Just a random shot from a short walk yesterday.

70-200 @ 200mm
Exposure 1/100 at f/4
ISO 400

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s11/v35/p391590777-4.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/misc/e17573379)

[RafaPolit]

Really? Can you prove that claim? I have yet to see one of those pictures.
Oh, absolutely, dozens of them! And this thread is filled with them as well... if you know where to look for :) . Its most evident when focus is close to MFD and there are subjects in the middle-background of either very thin characteristics (like branches) or very detailed and busy small parts (like flowers or leaves). Its not too bothersome, but on certain type of conditions like branches behind a subject, they tend to get a bit distracting.

Here are some quick samples that demonstrate that characteristic of this lens. They would not be my pick of great images, at all, but they are ones I found to illustrate the issue:

http://www.rafaelpolit.com/POTN/double_bokeh_1.jpg

http://www.rafaelpolit.com/POTN/double_bokeh_2.jpg

http://www.rafaelpolit.com/POTN/double_bokeh_3.jpg

As I said, its nothing to complain much about, but the f2.8mII exhibits none of this issues on the pictures I've seen.

Best regards,
Rafa.
PS. DarkBox's photo just above this post is yet another sample of the doubling issue on the stems that are OOF :) (being a beautiful image, I'm talking about a characteristic of the lens! mind it)

[RAW-Shooter]

Oh, absolutely, dozens of them! And this thread is filled with them as well... if you know where to look for :) . Its most evident when focus is close to MFD and there are subjects in the middle-background of either very thin characteristics (like branches) or very detailed and busy small parts (like flowers or leaves). Its not too bothersome, but on certain type of conditions like branches behind a subject, they tend to get a bit distracting.

As I said, its nothing to complain much about, but the f2.8mII exhibits none of this issues on the pictures I've seen.

Best regards,
Rafa.
PS. DarkBox's photo just above this post is yet another sample of the doubling issue on the stems that are OOF :) (being a beautiful image, I'm talking about a characteristic of the lens! mind it)


Hmmmm...OK, I did not go through all my xxxx photos I have taken with this lens, but I have a hard time finding one. Do you consider the sample below as a candidate?

[RafaPolit]

Aboslutely!!! Look at the most noticeable horizontal branch down-and-left of the beak (the Y of the branches): each horizontal branch shows a 'ghosting' or 'double branch', instead of a blurred OOF section. The browner tree on the top-left corner is also very significant example, specially in the horizontal lines.

It is not hard to take them away with some additional blur (and actually helps with subject-background separation). Its in no way something that renders the lens any less good than its exquisite quality vs. price, but it is a minor thing that is avoided by lenses with better rendering of the OOF areas.

Of course, others may not see it at all or not think it distracting, and it may just be me the one that 'reads' that quality in the pictures.

Rafa.

[Sirrith]

I do find this type of bokeh quite annoying, but thankfully I haven't gotten it yet, and it seems to be only when you have a very busy background, which is a good idea to avoid anyway.

[RAW-Shooter]

So...now things getting interesting.
Rafa, don't get me wrong. I have no intention to ridicule you or be a jerk of some sort. I am truly interested in the topic and want to learn how this effect can be avoided. Maybe this discussion needs to continue in another thread.

The picture I posted was taken with the 70-200 2.8 IS version....

I rented that lens two weeks ago, just to see how good it really is.

Needless to say, I am able to replicate that effect any time, because that particular spot is pretty close where I fly my RC planes and this ditch (in front of that heron) has seen some interesting "birds".

My 200/f2.8 prime has that effect sometimes also and if I use a TC, it gets worse. I need to check my 100-400 pictures later tonight.

Most likely pictures with that type of bokeh were marked as rejected and off I went to the next, without really thinking about it.

Again, I had no intention to fool you, I just tried to make a point...

Cheers.

[RafaPolit]

Its perfectly OK RAW-Shooter, I have never claimed to be an expert nor to know much about anything other than what my eyes see and like. As I said, I have not seen that effect on the mII, but that can be just a matter of not having enough images to sample from.

I myself like to believe my eyes and not charts, specs, reviews, etc... but living not in the US, I can only rely on those to make my decisions. Later on, I either confirm or deny those issues. The double background is an issue of my 70-200 f4 with my T2i.

Rafa.

[Elvin]

Hey all, I am offered the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS for a very reasonable price. It is in very good condition, just that its date code is UO, bringing it to a 12-year old lens. If the optics are clean, this model don't have any problems due to age, right? Just wanted some reassurance before I make the purchase.

[Mookalafalas]

Al, I was surprised reading this... How about IS? I'm sure that having one extra full stop of light plus the ability to avoid camera blur at 1/60th and above instead of requiring 1/250th at the longer end makes it a lens that can e used on many more shooting conditions!
Come on Rafa, I shoot way below 1/250 at the long end, and you do to! I never use the F4 indoors, but I don't use the Mark2 inside either. It's like a bazooka, useless for indoor intimate shooting. Besides, I have a couple of fast primes that would be better anyway.
The IS can be nice in low light, but I don't use this much for low light scenery, which is the only time it would be useful. Moving subjects, as we all know, will still blur the picture even with IS.

The better bokeh is another, more subtle issue, but the non-is f4 lens does suffer from a doubled background at certain apertures and distances (like the new 70-300L as well), while the mII doesn't.
The 2 does have better bokeh, but I was generally quite impressed with the F4s. What it DOES give, is subject isolation for more distant objects, which is really impressive with the M2, but the price difference is huge, and I don't shoot stuff far away that often. Also, it's gigantic and heavy to carry around. In fact, I think the weight makes me so much less steady that it can cancel out the IS!

Of course, the price difference is very serious, but, now that you have spent the money, you regret it?
Yeah, to some extent. When I bought mine, you could sell an M2 here at POTN for $2200USD. But right after I bought mine, the price dove several hundred dollars! It was a very unlikely event. I had originally thought I would just sell it again and consider it an expensive rental/experiment, but now I have to wait and see if the price goes back up. Meanwhile, the used price of our F4 has also gone down, and they go for as low as $450 now, and I am afraid to sell it in case I decide to part with the bazooka...:(
Anyway, they are both great lenses. I think the F4 non-IS is possibly the best bargain Canon lens there is. The M2 is definitely a luxury item. If I had it to do over again, I think I would have kept my 135mm and F4 and not have gotten the M2...

[RafaPolit]

...I think the F4 non-IS is possibly the best bargain Canon lens there is. The M2 is definitely a luxury item...
Absolutely agree on those two statements! Yeah, I'm overall inclined to agree with your entire post. My only minor disagreement would be the shutter speed... yeah, I know I have 1/100th at 200mm steady as they come, but that requires a LOT of preparation to the shot: ensuring a steady subject, position your entire body, hands, head and mind to produce the shot... so, unless your subject is (like mine were) completely mesmerized with music or some other sorts, they will not stay still for the photographer to make the shot. That is where the IS comes in handy as their faces will be still at 1/60th and you need not worry about camera shake. Of course, that is all theory, I have never had IS on the long end of a zoom.

Do I understand correctly that you still have your f4? You didn't sell it in the long run? Well, having both is surely more expensive than owning either one ;) :oops: but, you have the advantage of having both in case the weight of the mII gets too much.

Rafa.

[Mookalafalas]

yeah, you are right. I can't afford to keep both! I have to pay my credit card bill, which is shockingly large, right now :o

[meno222]

i was at the park taking pictures of my coworkers daughter when this gentlemen asked me if i could take a picture of him so he could take to his country.so i did and printed out for him..used 1d with 70-200mm f4
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/meno222/misc/7E3B8658.jpg

[meno222]

here is another pic
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/meno222/misc/IMG_8302.jpg

[proletsearch]

I have had the non-IS version and now I have the MKII. I don't think that the non-IS is less sharper than the MKII. The non-IS version is a great lens, when you have perfect light conditions, but the IS in combination with the 2.8 aperture makes a lot of difference to me.... For example, I can not take a shot with the F4 (non-IS) like this one (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/b9d2FzgRQg77XXqwfzfDSNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=d irectlink)
ISO 100, 200 mm, F4, 1/30 sec. - with the non-IS F4 the same shot would be ISO 800, 200mm, F4, 1/250 sec, if I want to be sure that is blurfree and well exposed...

[BryantFC]

Really debating on picking this up to round out the higher end of my focal length or the 135L..

I really want the 135L but i can't justify myself by paying that price since I rarely shoot over 85mm...

Seems like most images i've seen in here are pretty sharp! Quick question though for 5DII users, did you guys have to do any microadjusting or was it perfect out of the box?

[RafaPolit]

I don't have microadjusting on my camera and the lens was perfect for me out of the box it came from after being used by 3 others :) so yeah, lens is pretty much fantastic! Of course, there is sure to be some minor variation in one lens to the other, but I have never seen a batch of complaints for this lens like the ones you hear for others, no matter the age.

Rafa.

[beefweasal]

A couple from the zoo last month.

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac51/beefweasal/IMG_1801.jpg

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac51/beefweasal/IMG_1762.jpg

[Sirrith]

I have had the non-IS version and now I have the MKII. I don't think that the non-IS is less sharper than the MKII. The non-IS version is a great lens, when you have perfect light conditions, but the IS in combination with the 2.8 aperture makes a lot of difference to me.... For example, I can not take a shot with the F4 (non-IS) like this one (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/b9d2FzgRQg77XXqwfzfDSNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=d irectlink)
ISO 100, 200 mm, F4, 1/30 sec. - with the non-IS F4 the same shot would be ISO 800, 200mm, F4, 1/250 sec, if I want to be sure that is blurfree and well exposed...
You really should have shot that one at ISO 800 anyway to get the 1/250s shutter speed. A tiger is not a statue, it moves, you want as fast a shutter speed as possible. You can see a bit of motion blur in that photo, although luckily its face is relatively still.

[Andrew_T]

Russia, the open championship of St.-Petersburg, temperature of air -24 C (-11,2F)

http://album.foto.ru:8080/photos/or/223195/2288863.jpg

http://album.foto.ru:8080/photos/or/223195/2288864.jpg

http://album.foto.ru:8080/photos/or/223195/2288865.jpg

[RafaPolit]

Fantastic first post Andrew!!! Welcome to POTN and thanks for sharing such lovely images: I'm sure focusing at that speed is a challenge, I know exposing under such conditions is as would be framing them, and you did a great job on all fronts!

Congrats again and welcome!
Rafa.

[proletsearch]

You really should have shot that one at ISO 800 anyway to get the 1/250s shutter speed. A tiger is not a statue, it moves, you want as fast a shutter speed as possible. You can see a bit of motion blur in that photo, although luckily its face is relatively still.

Lol. This tiger was a statue for a second or more, so I took the chance. I should not have shot the 1/250 as that day I was testing my lens. 1/250 is not a fast shutter speed. This is maybe the minimum at 200 mm, when the F4 is hand held. You may see some blur in the eyes, if you zoom to the bottom, but if this shot was taken at ISO 800, you would see more grain than eyes :D

[Sirrith]

but if this shot was taken at ISO 800, you would see more grain than eyes :D
If you have problems using ISO 800 on your 600D then I'd suggest getting better noise reduction software! ISO 800 should be quite clean on a 600D. Its clean enough on my 450D. :confused:

[proletsearch]

If you have problems using ISO 800 on your 600D then I'd suggest getting better noise reduction software! ISO 800 should be quite clean on a 600D. Its clean enough on my 450D. :confused:

I don't have problems with the ISO upto 1250 (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ugYjqrU43O9qhiccsOlSTtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=d irectlink), but I prefer a clean image, where possible - the image I gave for example is already a crop, the more you crop, the more noise gets visible. If I export the full image at a resolution 1920x1280 you will not notice any blur, or noise, where a heavy crop at ISO 800 is not pleasant for my eyes . The 600D has already build-in noise reduction and a software suitable for this purpose is Neat Image.

[T2i4me]

An amazing sunset in February.

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac112/Hotrodes/Landscape/Rubys.jpg

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac112/Hotrodes/Landscape/EastEnd.jpg

[Andrew_T]

Fantastic first post Andrew!!! Welcome to POTN and thanks for sharing such lovely images: I'm sure focusing at that speed is a challenge, I know exposing under such conditions is as would be framing them, and you did a great job on all fronts!

Congrats again and welcome!
Rafa.

Thank you very much! It were really extreme conditions, for sportsmen and their dogs, for spectators and photographers. I am very happy that could receive good pictures.

[KlausHeissler]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6658506089_0b1c52f4f4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/70918486@N04/6658506089/)
Laughing Flock (http://www.flickr.com/photos/70918486@N04/6658506089/) by Grimezy15 (http://www.flickr.com/people/70918486@N04/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6658507263_84e11106ba_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/70918486@N04/6658507263/)
Chasing Sheep (http://www.flickr.com/photos/70918486@N04/6658507263/) by Grimezy15 (http://www.flickr.com/people/70918486@N04/), on Flickr

Took these a month or so back, never got around to posting them here.

[mek501st]

An amazing sunset in February.

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac112/Hotrodes/Landscape/Rubys.jpg

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac112/Hotrodes/Landscape/EastEnd.jpg

Amazing shots! I really love the second picbw!

[T2i4me]

^ Thanks for the kind words.

[BryantFC]

I just purchased one today from a POTN member :). Excited! Can't wait to contribute. Decided to grab this over the 135L to save myself some money.

[Jaynez]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6184/6118138844_2cb3e31f61_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaynez/6118138844/)
Hummingbird (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaynez/6118138844/)

[Ingerson"PCD"]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6838911607_5eabef9d02_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6838911607/)
70-200 F4 L (1 of 1) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6838911607/) by Ingerson"PCD" (http://www.flickr.com/people/ingerson/), on Flickr

[alwaysDSLR]

Posting two photos taken using my 70-200 f4L USM for comment. I thought the bokeh shown in these photos is fairly decent? Are there "double background" as noticed by some friends here on some photos taken using this glass?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/s2800021/IMG_0320.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/s2800021/IMG_0290.jpg

[jabtas]

Stupid Sat-Nav
http://www.pbase.com/jabtas/image/141371456.jpg

Too cold anyway
http://www.pbase.com/jabtas/image/141371454.jpg

[Ingerson"PCD"]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6799004617_e8605651a6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6799004617/)
IMG_6821 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingerson/6799004617/) by Ingerson"PCD" (http://www.flickr.com/people/ingerson/), on Flickr

[stanik_sk]

Another dog from todays walk :)

[DarkBoxPhotography]

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s3/v44/p970674437-4.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/misc/e39db5105)

[TallZXDriver]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420901_10150542300802709_701397708_9172189_1895844 612_n.jpg


Nothing too spectacular, but it was a good excuse to use my new lens.

[Nobody Weird Like Me]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7195/6846709283_1858c5248f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54244573@N06/6846709283/)
Blue Tit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54244573@N06/6846709283/) by C Hartmann (http://www.flickr.com/people/54244573@N06/), on Flickr
This is cropped quite a lot.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6846698323_db78c67369_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54244573@N06/6846698323/)
Magpie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54244573@N06/6846698323/) by C Hartmann (http://www.flickr.com/people/54244573@N06/), on Flickr
This one had lost its tail.

[T2i4me]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420901_10150542300802709_701397708_9172189_1895844 612_n.jpg


Nothing too spectacular, but it was a good excuse to use my new lens.

What was that?

[macui1]

taken in Mondello Ireland last september ,

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6096/6212167255_463a054682_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/conon-d-450/6212167255/)
5R2V0192 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/conon-d-450/6212167255/) by macui1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/conon-d-450/), on Flickr
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6155/6183071462_8f968d6636_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/conon-d-450/6183071462/)
5R2V9780 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/conon-d-450/6183071462/) by macui1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/conon-d-450/), on Flickr

[cherrymoon]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420901_10150542300802709_701397708_9172189_1895844 612_n.jpg


Nothing too spectacular, but it was a good excuse to use my new lens.

The AF on this f4 is really slow, the rocket is already gone (on the road) for a long time...

[TallZXDriver]

What was that?



Bomb squad was disposing of some stuff. What looks like a rocket trail on the ground is actually the det-cord going to the explosion. The cord moves at something like 22,000 feet per second. The fact that I even captured that is amazing.


Some more pictures as well as some explanation as to how I shot it and why is in this thread...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1146439

[DarkBoxPhotography]

A bit of unusual type of photo for me. I love the amount of detail this camera gives me.

Focal length 70mm, ISO 100, f18, 13 sec

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s3/v44/p421724959-5.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/landscape/e1923031f)

[RafaPolit]

Absolutely gorgeous yet spooky spot!!! That tree is a monumental place... I would dwell on it for as long as I can taking off-center images, centered images, details, etc. The way the light spreads through its branches is just amazing! I'm guessing there is some localizing-light PP there? At any rate, the place is great!

If I'm being picky, there is a slight burnt spot at the top center of the tree that may be trimmed down a bit to regain detail? Again, just picky, love the photo and place!

Rafa.

[T2i4me]

A bit of unusual type of photo for me. I love the amount of detail this camera gives me.

Focal length 70mm, ISO 100, f18, 13 sec

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s3/v44/p421724959-5.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/landscape/e1923031f)

Looks like something from Harry Potter, very cool shot!

[Jan Jasinski]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/6864143437_d5924cd30f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6864143437/)
British Airways Cargo | Boeing 747-87UF | G-GSSD (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasinski/6864143437/) by Jan Jasinski (http://www.flickr.com/people/janjasinski/), on Flickr

[BryantFC]

First time using the 70-200L and i'm impressed. I did shoot this at 1/125th but you couldn't get the timing of this candid any better!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7037/6867253871_21a915b15e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63032888@N03/6867253871/)
IMG_0896 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63032888@N03/6867253871/) by BryantFC (http://www.flickr.com/people/63032888@N03/), on Flickr

[DarkBoxPhotography]

Absolutely gorgeous yet spooky spot!!! That tree is a monumental place... I would dwell on it for as long as I can taking off-center images, centered images, details, etc. The way the light spreads through its branches is just amazing! I'm guessing there is some localizing-light PP there? At any rate, the place is great!

If I'm being picky, there is a slight burnt spot at the top center of the tree that may be trimmed down a bit to regain detail? Again, just picky, love the photo and place!

Rafa.

Thank you Rafa. The place is lovely and not that far away from me. This is an old wood, with a whole alleyway of those trees. I have more photos of them (some close-ups) with a nice light coming through the branches, but wan not sure anybody would like it. The place is quite spooky and very quiet.

There was honestly 10 min of PP. Corrected levels, reduced saturation a bit (after converting to sRGB, greens looked a bit oversaturated and darkened the background trees a bit in ACR).

I promised myself that the first thing I'll do when I see some sunshine is to drive there and walk around this place taking pictures. I'm sure it will look even better then. This was taken on a overcast day.

I noticed the bright spot on the tree when I was PP, but decided to leave it as it is this time. I'll be more accurate when I bring home pictures with sunshine rays coming through the branches :)

Looks like something from Harry Potter, very cool shot!

Never seen Harry Potter, but thank you :)

[RafaPolit]

Friends,

I have said it often here that I envy and admire the folks that share here beautiful Landscapes made with this lens. I find it more 'obvious' those all-encompassing photos made with wide angles rather than those produced with long lenses. For those few that manage great landscapes with long lenses I have nothing but admiration. I don't have the correct 'chip' for finding the right spots and compositions that will benefit from the long lens.

I am here to share one rare example of mine :) ... this was so far away that the long lens was more or less the only choice. I normally would not have gone with the long lens and would have ruined the image. Luckily, I didn't this time.

Hope you guys enjoy my Misty Waterfall:

http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_874665ba56242ec9a0f04011a2ee1d5e.jpg
Misty Waterfall (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=203&ln=2)

Best regards,
Rafa.

[DarkBoxPhotography]

Wow, this is stunning photo Rafa! I'd be more than happy to have this in my collection.

I wish I had locations like this anywhere near me.

[jabtas]

Frosty morning at the pond
http://www.pbase.com/jabtas/image/141503877.jpg

[DarkBoxPhotography]

A bit unusual photo. Shot at night in complete darkness. Cropped.

Focal length: 70 mm
Exposure: 30s at f/4
Flash: Not fired, compulsory mode
Exposure bias: 0 EV
Exposure mode: Manual
Exposure prog.: Manual
ISO speed: ISO 100
Metering mode: Pattern

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s3/v44/p979094054-4.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/landscape/e3a5bca26)

[Mookalafalas]

http://www.rafaelpolit.com/images/content/full/img_874665ba56242ec9a0f04011a2ee1d5e.jpg
Misty Waterfall (http://www.rafaelpolit.com/inicio/index.php?sid=14&gim=203&ln=2)


I want to go where they have scenery like this!!

This afternoon I took out this lens for the first time in 3 months--since I bought the 70-200 2.8 Mark2. Boy did I have a good time!! This feels so light and tiny and unobtrusive comparatively. It was like shooting with the nifty fift...but IQ wise, surprisingly little difference.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/6881400107_c66be91f82_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881400107/)
20120215-IMG_6640.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881400107/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/6881400871_2363f02401_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881400871/)
20120215-IMG_6683.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881400871/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/6881401697_04aa99ceed_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881401697/)
20120215-IMG_6694-Edit.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881401697/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/6881397911_e6ca671e40_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881397911/)
20120215-IMG_6544.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881397911/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7068/6881399207_12f0874b86_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881399207/)
20120215-IMG_6613.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881399207/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/6881398433_03e1c79771_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881398433/)
20120215-IMG_6549.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6881398433/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

[Mookalafalas]

From today. I've fallen back in love with this lens. My brother-in-law is going to help me sell my mark II:)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7040/6885084575_6f5a25fd50_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6885084575/)
20120216-IMG_6754.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6885084575/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

Oh, and one more from yesterday:)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7069/6885219077_025ab715e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6885219077/)
Baseball at Dusk.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookalafalas-pixgalore/6885219077/) by Mookalafalas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mookalafalas-pixgalore/), on Flickr

[cpeay]

Hand held aand low light
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/hh416/clpeay/_MG_8342.jpg

[Sirrith]

From today. I've fallen back in love with this lens. My brother-in-law is going to help me sell my mark II:)


Just don't publish that on these forums, you'll get mobbed by the gear snobs :)

[DarkBoxPhotography]

One of the last shots taken with my 450D before it was put back to the box (date is 4th August 2011).

Quite funny story actually as I had no idea the ship will be over on Firth of Forth. I just happened to be there, if I'd arrived 15 min earlier I'd have a nice shot of Queen Elizabeth ship going under Forth Rail Bridge. Unfortunetely I was too late. It wasn't a nice day for photography anyway, so I had to crop much of the sky.


http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s8/v10/p1011010891-4.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/misc/e3c42cd4b)

Camera model: Canon EOS 450D
Focal length: 118 mm
Exposure: 1/200 at f/4
Flash: Not fired, compulsory mode
Exposure bias: 0 EV
Exposure mode: Manual
Exposure prog.: Manual
ISO speed: ISO 200
Metering mode: Spot

[RafaPolit]

Al, very difficult to decide weather to congratulate you on the decision or say 'sorry' for probably some lost dollars on the mkII :( . At any rate, I have always enjoyed your candids from around your place, and this are no exception. The older fellow in the bike is really interesting. The strong close-ups like the stems of purple wheat (no idea what they are!) and the shoes are very simple yet powerful images. So, you do have a winner on that lens, that's for sure.

Perhaps this frees a bit of money in order to gain access to your 'other needs', like a small-ish camera like the G1x or NEX we discussed elsewhere?

At any rate, I'm sure selling the mkII would be far easier, even in this forums, than the f4, so good luck!

Rafa.

[arch.cm]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6887571115_cab3012de5_z.jpg

[Mookalafalas]

Al, very difficult to decide weather to congratulate you on the decision or say 'sorry' for probably some lost dollars on the mkII :( . At any rate, I have always enjoyed your candids from around your place, and this are no exception. The older fellow in the bike is really interesting. The strong close-ups like the stems of purple wheat (no idea what they are!) and the shoes are very simple yet powerful images. So, you do have a winner on that lens, that's for sure.

Perhaps this frees a bit of money in order to gain access to your 'other needs', like a small-ish camera like the G1x or NEX we discussed elsewhere?

At any rate, I'm sure selling the mkII would be far easier, even in this forums, than the f4, so good luck!

Rafa.

Thanks, Rafa:) Actually, my brother in law says he can sell my Mark2 here in Taiwan online, for surprisingly close to what I paid for it! If it's true, I'll be really delighted! That lens really is awesome, but so is this one...as someone put it in another POTN thread, its several times more money for a few percent more in IQ quality.

[arch.cm]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7179/6890042655_2ab836ab1d_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7039/6890099125_1349d2cd4c_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7042/6890016053_062bf66c65_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7055/6889904045_57253dea80_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7070/6889802117_9b776d8b95_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7045/6889927051_c1c19b5133_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6889839483_621ca26b43_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6887703143_4e30ace7fe_b.jpg

[DarkBoxPhotography]

http://www.darkboxphotography.com/img/s1/v22/p672284273-5.jpg (http://www.darkboxphotography.com/misc/e28123e71)

[T2i4me]

^ Great artistic eye!

[DarkBoxPhotography]

^ Great artistic eye!

Thank you :cool:

[RafaPolit]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7045/6889927051_c1c19b5133_b.jpg
This, for me, is a fantastic image... the depth it conveys plus the evocative silhouettes are fantastic! Love the whole idea of the image plus the monotone palette it has, either naturally or made. Thanks for sharing,
Rafa.

[arch.cm]

This, for me, is a fantastic image... the depth it conveys plus the evocative silhouettes are fantastic! Love the whole idea of the image plus the monotone palette it has, either naturally or made. Thanks for sharing,
Rafa.

Thank you for your kind words!