70-200 F4, any use this lens

[KiwiRob]

If you do what do you think of it, are you better off with this one or saving up for the 70-200 2.8?

[BobbyC]

It's a very good lens, I use it all the time. You just have to decide if you do enough lower light shooting to justify the extra cost of the extra stop. Of course you can just move up the ISO a stop or 2. It really depends on your shooting requirements. The quality is there.

[Belmondo]

Unlike the 16-35 vs 17-40 comparison that you asked about in another thread, I can speak from experience here because I own both lenses (actually, the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8L).

Here again, there is a huge price difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8 IS version, and the justification for that difference is largely dependent on what you intend to do with the lens.

Generally speaking, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a fantastic lens in just about every situation. Image stabilization is very useful, especially in handheld situations, and the picture quality is first-rate.

The f/4 is less forgiving due to the lack of IS and because it's one full f-stop slower, but optically, it is as good as the 2.8, and maybe even slightly better.

The big advantage to the f/4 is weight. It is considerably lighter than it's much heavier cousin, and if you're going to spend the day lugging it around, you might find the lighter lens a better choice.

Lastly, they do make the f/2.8 version without IS, and I have no experience with that lens. As you might expect, it falls right between the two pricewise. IMHO, if you're going to spend the extra money, buy the IS version---you might as well have all the bells and whistles, especially in this case because they really do work.

Tom

[dtrayers]

Price is important, but for me the weight was a bigger factor. I hike a lot but I can't resist taking almost everything in the backpack, and since many of my shots are outdoors, the extra f-stop isn't as big a deal.

Optically, it's a great lens. Here's a shot of Split Rock Lighthouse taken with the lens from about 1/2 mile away across Little Two Harbors (the famous postcard shot). The focal length was 168mm at f/9. I didn't crop the pic at all, just re-sized with PS.

http://home.comcast.net/~dtrayers/photos/split-rock-light.jpg

[Belmondo]

dtrayers' equipment list reminds me of one other thing about the f/4. It does not come with the lens collar, and you'll need that eventually. That adds another $100 (approx) to the sales price. It's still a bargain when compared to the f/2.8

[dtrayers]

dtrayers' equipment list reminds me of one other thing about the f/4. It does not come with the lens collar, and you'll need that eventually. That adds another $100 (approx) to the sales price. It's still a bargain when compared to the f/2.8

Quite right, but get the black one. It's a lot cheaper.

[Scottes]

Yes the lack of tripod collar ($139 I think) was a big turn-off for the F4 so I got the 2.8 non-IS. I couldn't justify going from $580 to $1650 for IS, but I could go to $1130 for the 2.8 non-IS. One big reason for me to get the 2.8 was that it could handle a 2x TC and still autofocus on the 10D (albeit center point only).

[wolverine]

I agree with Tom. I have the f/4, and absolutely love it. If I were going to spent the extra bucks, it would be for the IS. Here are a couple of samples from my lens.
http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/wolverine/images/70-200_1.jpg

http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/wolverine/images/70-200_2.jpg

If all of your images are taken outside, in bright light, with a tripod, you would be wastingyour money on the 2.8.

[Sketcher]

I really liked my 70-200 f/4L.

Unfortunately, I sold it to save up for the 2.8L IS version. At the time, it just didn't make sense to tie up that much money in keeping two lenses that covered the same focal range.

The f4L is really nice. Smaller and lighter than the 2.8's and just as sharp. Arguably, one of the best if not the best "L" for the money. If I were to do it over, I'd have kept the f4L even though it meant it'd take me longer to acquire the f2.8L IS. Then I'd have my favorite optics in a light package for those times when I don't want to lug around the dreadnought :).

[CyberDyneSystems]

Arguably, one of the best if not the best "L" for the money.

Although I haven't used the 70-200mm f/4 myself,. this reminds of what I constantly say about the 17-40mm f/4....
and there are those that feel strongly that the 17-40mm f/4 is optically superior to the pricier f/2/8 wides...


Put together,. I think the bottom line is that the DEAL is Canon's unsung heros,.. the F/4 L zooms!

Now they need to make a superlative 24-70 or 28-135 f/4 and a 100-300mm f/4 to complete the set :mrgreen:

[Jim Larson]

The screaming whole in the EOS lineup can be filled by the 24-70/4L.

It would make a nice introduction along with a full framed Canon 1D replacement at PMA no? :P

Beyond the 200, we have the 300/4L and 400/5.6L. Personally, I think anything that can't be handled by a 200 will require "as much as you can get", so a non-zooming prime would be fine.

Optically, the 70-200/4L is considered just as good as the 70-200/2.8L. The price, weight and aperture tradeoffs are obvious. I personally shoot the 70-200/4L.

[JStone]

Quite right, but get the black one. It's a lot cheaper
The only tripod collar currently listed in Canon's catalog for the 70-200 f4 is in white (2889A002-Tripod Mount Ring A (W) @ $119 retail)..the 200 f2.8 offers a black ring @ about $85 but I don't think they are interchangable.

[Jim Larson]

Quite right, but get the black one. It's a lot cheaper
The only tripod collar currently listed in Canon's catalog for the 70-200 f4 is in white (2889A002-Tripod Mount Ring A (W) @ $119 retail)..the 200 f2.8 offers a black ring @ about $85 but I don't think they are interchangable.

Tripod Mount Ring A (W) and Tripod Mount Ring A (B) are not interchangable because a off-white collar on a black lens looks as bad as a black collar on a off-white lens

[dtrayers]

The only tripod collar currently listed in Canon's catalog for the 70-200 f4 is in white (2889A002-Tripod Mount Ring A (W) @ $119 retail)..the 200 f2.8 offers a black ring @ about $85 but I don't think they are interchangable.

I have the black one and I know it fits the 70-200 f/4 L. Ignore what Canon or the online vendors say.

Here's a link to BH:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=211436&is=REG

[Vegas Poboy]

I have the 70-200 f/4 and it's well worth the price if I had to go another route it would of been the Sigma f/2.8 but so far I have'nt needed the extra stop yet. This is my favorite lens and stays on the camera more than my other 4 lens. including the 17-40 f/4.
I purchased the ring & have'nt used it yet but some day I'm sure I'll need it.

[JStone]

Tripod Mount Ring A (W) and Tripod Mount Ring A (B) are not interchangable because a off-white collar on a black lens looks as bad as a black collar on a off-white lens

Well, that's great logic. LOL..but if its a color connection you want...my white 70-200 f4 won't go onto my silver and black Dreb with the black BGED3 or onto my black 10d...and since the Canon rigs always look patchwork why would I care what color my collar is? :wink:

[imago57]

I own this lens, and I am very satisfied with the job it does. I am attaching a sample image.

It was easy for me to choose between this lens and the f2.8 bigger brother once I walked in B&H and I tried both of them on the camera. I lifted both lenses and realized the difference in bulk and weight, that made it clear to me that the choice was between the f4.0 and the f2.8IS, the f2.8 non IS is so much heavier than the f4.0 that despite the extra stop was almost useless without a tripod. In other words, if I have a problem with light I will have to increase the shooting speed no matter which lens I am using ( I don't like to much increasing the ISO because of the possible increase in noise ), and therefore I will need a tripod anyway...so why spend the extra money? The choice to skip the IS lens was in part a monetary issue, and partly dictated by the fact that I find myself often shooting in very underprivileged parts of the world, and I try to be as little of a target as I can (of course an off white lens is still an off white lens, but at least this is easier to hide under a jacket...)

I hope this was of help to you.

http://www.imagokaleidoscopes.com/D60Forum/CRW_8321_W.jpg

[FotoPhreak]

What do people think of the F4 lense say if I were to go and do concert or sunset/rise photography?

And also CDS mentioned in another of my posts thinking about the Sigma 2.8 ... has anyone experienced these/read anything comparing them to the equivalent Canon L-series?

I hate this decision ...

70-200

2.8 IS
2.8 NON-IS
4

Canon
Sigma

or of course there is always the 17-40 ... but kind of a completely different lense category I guess.

So the question then is, knowing the I want to shoot outdoor photography, rockclimbing, sunsets/sunrises, portraits, and the occosaional rock concert ...

WHAT DO I GET?!?!??!

[Jim Larson]

WHAT DO I GET?!?!??!

Can you afford the 2.8IS? If so, then buy it.
Do want to carry the 2.8IS? If not, then get the 4.

8)

[Avarond]

Guess I'll chime in on this too, since im considering buying one of these lenses real soon. Ive considered the Sigma 2.8 and the Canon 4 in those sizes and was wondering how the 1.4 extenders work with both of those. The extenders will probably only get used in very bright outdoor shots on water, but the tripod is going to be tricky if not usable at all. My question is do the extenders work that good. Can you put a sigma extender on a canon lens. Can I hand hold a 2.8 or F4 lens with one on or does it have to be on a tripod. Since the extender for sigma is considerably cheaper than the canon one, then with that option it puts the price of these lenses within about 60 dollars of each other. One other thing is does the sigma lens come with a tripod collar, if not how much are they?

Too many decisions....and not enough money.

[Vegas Poboy]

I've shot sunsets, moonlight, sunrise and fireworks with less than the f/4 lens. I did this with film E6 film in fact. From the past classes I've taken you don't need speed when shooting these shots. Tripod, & time, the more exposure the better the shot depending on the light. You'll need a longer DOF for clarity and some of my exposures where from 5 seconds and longer.
I'll admit I have not tried this with the 10D yet only because I'm waiting on warmer weather but photography has the same rules no matter what setup you're using.

On extenders the 1.4 is going to be my next purchase. if that won't work for me that only gives me an exuse to purchase more glass but I also would like to know if you can mix sigma with the canon extender.

Concerts & sports photography is my next class & I've heard from other students that 2.8 is recommended even with the 10d, shooting with 1600 ISO , f2.8 @ 125-250 can be a challenge but that class does not start into the end of the month. I'm hoping I can get away with the f/4 if not then I'll try to get away with my 28-70 2.8. If this link is still going I'll let you know. My own experience shooting a concert outdoors with film I used Kodak 320 & fuji 400 and had it pushed two stops and that was using f/5.6@ 125. Again Vegas has alot of summer concerts I plan on learning more of what I can do with the 10D.
All in all I can agree with Jim if you can afford it Spend it ;)

[Belmondo]

The only tripod collar currently listed in Canon's catalog for the 70-200 f4 is in white (2889A002-Tripod Mount Ring A (W) @ $119 retail)..the 200 f2.8 offers a black ring @ about $85 but I don't think they are interchangable.

I have the black one and I know it fits the 70-200 f/4 L. Ignore what Canon or the online vendors say.

Here's a link to BH:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=211436&is=REG

The Type B tripod ring might fit the 70-200-f/4, but the Type A tripod ring will definitely not fit the 100mm f/2.8 macro. The Type B is a larger diameter, so maybe it can be shimmed to fit the smaller 70-200. I'll let you know after I get one.

Thos.

[Malaxos1]

dtrayers' equipment list reminds me of one other thing about the f/4. It does not come with the lens collar, and you'll need that eventually. That adds another $100 (approx) to the sales price. It's still a bargain when compared to the f/2.8

I have the f4 and love it. It has been on my camera since I got it a few weeks ago. Anyway, I will be using it low light situartions. I shoot weddings and most of the time shoot at f5.6 anyway to ensure that everything is sharp. Sometimes I will shoot wide open (with my other lens) at f2.8, I will just switch lenses to do that. One thing to note about the 70-200 f4 is that it is incredibly light, as a matter of fact, my Tamron 28-75 f28 is heavier. Because of its small size and light weight you DO NOT need a tripod collar. I simply use my tripod with my camera. Anyway its a great lens and worth every penny...Dean