Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

[footman]

Has anyone used a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM on a canon 7d, any sample images and any sample filming as i do both filming and photography. i assume the lens from my research will be more than capable, i use a tamron 17-50mm vc canon fit right now which is awesome and im looking to buy this canon L series which would be my first, with the filming i would need the IS but i have'nt seen much footage for it, if anyone has any light to shed on this or a link i would be very grateful..

New User btw so any replies would be great thanks

Jt
...and here you go again
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5543366933_bc8d884b19_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mack100/5543366933/)
It's already been on here a few weeks ago but I'll unashamedly put it up again because it answers your request :cool:

[Ricardo222]

And it proves the point...this is a fine lens on any camera!
Nice shot BTW.

One from last night.

[nikmar08]

Has anyone used a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM on a canon 7d, any sample images and any sample filming as i do both filming and photography.

All of my pics on this thread are with the 7D. If you do not know a way to search user-specific posts, shout.

i assume the lens from my research will be more than capable, i use a tamron 17-50mm vc canon fit right now which is awesome and im looking to buy this canon L series which would be my first...
This sure is an awesome lens even for video though I have done very few with this... I have done most of mine with the tamron 17-50 VC. I will post if I get something out of my archives.
...with the filming i would need the IS but i have'nt seen much footage for it, if anyone has any light to shed on this or a link i would be very grateful..

New User btw so any replies would be great thanks

Jt
For videos, it's the shutter speed of around 1/125 or 1/50 which drives everything else to get it right. So I am not sure I understand what you mean by need for IS in the context of video.

[winmazing]

Henrik or Daniel? :) Cool shot. GL against the Hawks tonight.

I've just recently started to notice the difference between the two so I'm pretty sure that's Henrik. That's what happens when you are a diehard fan :)

We got game 1, but there are plenty more battles to be won.

[hawkan]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/4004401976_0aa41f1f65_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/winmazing/4004401976/in/set-72157626384399704)

It's Beaker from the Muppet Show in a hockey outfit! :-D

No, seriously, that's a great hockey portrait of (Daniel? Henrik?) Sedin. Good job.

[Adam Jones]

I've just recently started to notice the difference between the two so I'm pretty sure that's Henrik. That's what happens when you are a diehard fan :)

We got game 1, but there are plenty more battles to be won.

Wait, there's a difference? :lol:

[alwaySleepy]

Here you go:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5590149782_3e643bbb45_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51608005@N03/5590149782/)
Derrick & Jackie-85.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51608005@N03/5590149782/) by mtimber1971 (http://www.flickr.com/people/51608005@N03/), on Flickr

Was this shot while mounted on a tripod?

[mtimber]

Was this shot while mounted on a tripod?

No handheld with a bounce flash from about 20 feet away, then cropped.

Edited in LR3 and CS5 for sharpening etc.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Click for larger version:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5620034031_1fff48fcb8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iamhydrogen/5620034031/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

[moedizzle]

Great hockey shot Winmazing

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5305/5623326275_ea34695bbe_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5623326275/)
Day 105/365 - Killer Look (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5623326275/) by EMIV (http://www.flickr.com/people/emiv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5186/5623914988_5028be137f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5623914988/)
BMW Derriere (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5623914988/) by EMIV (http://www.flickr.com/people/emiv/), on Flickr

[Ricardo222]

Tonight

[silvrr]

Kevin always love the colors in your shots and of course the subject. You need to post on CPS again.

[sebr]

Nice shots!! Kevin, love that Chicago shot!!

[i_am_hydrogen]

Kevin always love the colors in your shots and of course the subject. You need to post on CPS again.

Nice shots!! Kevin, love that Chicago shot!!

Thanks, guys.

silvrr - I'll stop by for sure. We have to convince Northsider to start taking photos again. He's been on hiatus for too long.

****
Ricardo - Nice shot. Love the silhouettes.

[Ricardo222]

Thanks, guys.


****
Ricardo - Nice shot. Love the silhouettes.

Thanks Kevin...and I'm still loving your Chicago cityscapes. (And there's a club in your city where my favourite jazz singer often hangs out...her name is Patricia Barber, but I can't remember the name of the club...but I'll visit one day!)

From today...

[moedizzle]

Another great one Ricardo

ALMS race in Long Beach yesterday

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5067/5628190248_874a6b5e27_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5628190248/)
Day 106/365 - Racing Into the Sunset (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5628190248/) by EMIV (http://www.flickr.com/people/emiv/), on Flickr

[Adam Jones]

Great shot, Ricardo.

[Ricardo222]

Another great one Ricardo



Great shot, Ricardo.

Thanks guys...

[reprazent]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5144/5629218171_f611e9574e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tequilazu/5629218171/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5629799254_0836f00db9_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tequilazu/5629799254/)

[Adam Jones]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5633295741_8c4b1b55ab_b.jpg

[ZachOly]

Shot wide open with no sharpening

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5309/5637488559_a478a8f66e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharywheeler/5637488559/)
Grouse on the East Coast Trail (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharywheeler/5637488559/) by ZachWheeler (http://www.flickr.com/people/zacharywheeler/), on Flickr

[Ricardo222]

Tuesday evening

[alwaySleepy]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5633295741_8c4b1b55ab_b.jpg

nailed the DOF on this one! Love it

[Adam Jones]

nailed the DOF on this one! Love it

Thanks! :) This lens is definitely my "go-to" for this kind of shooting. I always manage to get a handful of keepers, even with the cranky 5D2 autofocus. :lol:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5639493947_05606020f6_b.jpg

[BrandonSi]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5310/5643150931_84a87d86f1_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5643150931/)
Kayla (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5643150931/) by Βrandon (http://www.flickr.com/people/tycn/), on Flickr

[gregr2]

My daughter's dance recital.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5643977174_11a056f05b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregandmellina/5643977174/)
Olivia's Dance Recital (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregandmellina/5643977174/) by Greg and Mellina (http://www.flickr.com/people/gregandmellina/), on Flickr

[minijag]

I can understand the reasoning, he needs a couple of usable images for each driver and this method guarantees he will do so. But surely a pro with that amount of experience shooting fast-moving cars should be able to come up with usable stuff taken panning at low shutter speeds?

I shoot this sort of thing maybe once or twice a year, and I don't get to pick the optimum vantage point. But I can still get something that gives the impression of driving a fast car. The IS (mode 2) on the 70-200 really does help with these shots.


That's one of the situations in which I think IS really makes a difference!

Going to car racing events with my 70-200mm f/4 non -IS - and beeing used to take some "good" panning shots with my old EOS450D + EF 55-250mm IS combo - really was a disapointment.

I just can't get the same sharp shots I used to (panning shots, that is), despite the fact that I now use a 7D.

Higher shutter speed shots are awesome, but panning isn't that great.

Would you agree? I mean, is IS really important on panning shots!?

Here are a couple of examples:

The new combo (7D + 70-200 L non-IS)

Shot at 1/200

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff56/minijag/IMG_7097.jpg

The old combo (EOS450D + EF 55-250mm IS)

Shot at 1/100 !!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2525/4037339906_a1ca1d6fc6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/minijag/4037339906/)
Bobby Rahal – Lola T290 - 1972 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/minijag/4037339906/) por Nuno Castelhano (http://www.flickr.com/people/minijag/), no Flickr


Any comments/opinions would be much appreciated!

Thanks

[jptsr1]

Thanks! :) This lens is definitely my "go-to" for this kind of shooting. I always manage to get a handful of keepers, even with the cranky 5D2 autofocus. :lol:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5639493947_05606020f6_b.jpg

looks like there is a smudge or flare in the center around the dogs head.

[nakizimbo]

Just received my 70-200 f4 IS today. First of the shots that I took today. I am really looking forward to having some fun with this.

528350

[targut]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5649509134_4eddfaf21a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h-studio/5649509134/)
Kestrel (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h-studio/5649509134/)
with Kenko 1.4

[gary88]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5650137077_bd5f2afd4b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyhebding/5650137077/)
2007 BMW Z4M Coupe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyhebding/5650137077/) by garyhebding (http://www.flickr.com/people/garyhebding/), on Flickr

[Ricardo222]

One from yesterday...at our local airshow

[Ricardo222]

And another...

[hondafans]

One from yesterday...at our local airshow

Like the pp

[Adam Jones]

looks like there is a smudge or flare in the center around the dogs head.

Thanks...it's actually a blade of grass.

[reprazent]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5654543549_bb544df8a8_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tequilazu/5654543549/)

[Ricardo222]

Like the pp

Thank you. Almost no PP...just a boost to contrast. The little vapour trail was a product of the very moist air! The weather was terrible, but sometimes days like that give moments of stunning light.

[kshark]

One from yesterday...at our local airshow

Great shots and excellent post or lack there of if that's the case. Almost looks like a painting, and the clouds provide a great backdrop...

[kshark]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5607798405_37c1ef9619_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5607798405/)
Old Car City (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5607798405/) by Brett Kiger (http://www.flickr.com/people/51442732@N03/), on Flickr

[Ricardo222]

Great shots and excellent post or lack there of if that's the case. Almost looks like a painting, and the clouds provide a great backdrop...

Thank you.

Yes, the clouds do add atmosphere, don't they. And like the shooters say on the first day of the duck-hunting season...low clouds keep the ducks in range!;)

P.S. Spectacular shot of the cars...you need to tidy your garage though!

[XxDJCyberLoverxX]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5654543549_bb544df8a8_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tequilazu/5654543549/)


Wow, just wow! Excellent eye for the shades. I wouldve never thought to do that type of conversion. Loving the light on that.

[alwaySleepy]

Love the last 2 shots!

[kshark]

T

P.S. Spectacular shot of the cars...you need to tidy you garage though!

Thanks, I've been meaning to get around to that for the past 50 years or so... :rolleyes:

[reprazent]

Wow, just wow! Excellent eye for the shades. I wouldve never thought to do that type of conversion. Loving the light on that.

Love the last 2 shots!

thanks :eek:

@kshark: nice tonemapping!

[Markitos]

@Ricardo222 - those plane shots are flipping sweet!

http://beltie.smugmug.com/photos/i-bN37mSg/0/O/i-bN37mSg.jpg

[Ricardo222]

@Ricardo222 - those plane shots are flipping sweet!



Thank you!

And you've done a great job of capturing the complexities of that white dress. Lovely shot!

[ZachOly]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5659388109_77fbdf758c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharywheeler/5659388109/)
Scotty Cameron - Pro Platinum - Newport (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharywheeler/5659388109/) by ZachWheeler (http://www.flickr.com/people/zacharywheeler/), on Flickr

[Skraap]

Just a quick snapshot. This lens is so sharp if you treat it right :)
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8269/22642580.jpg
100%:
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/6336/70862314.jpg

[DownEaster]

@reprazent. That's fantastic! I never would have thought a shot of something "ordinary" like that could look so interesting.

[Pantchovilla]

Hello from France :)
I have the non IS version, but I want to upgrade, because i'm gonna shoot mariages.
Did someone use it in a church?For what results?
What is the speed limit with IS in this conditions?
Thanks.

[ChuckingFluff]

^^^^ save for the f2.8L IS it's much better indoors cause churches can be dark and not all of them allow flashes. Then again there's some much faster primes that would do a better job in low light.

[Pantchovilla]

^^^^ save for the f2.8L IS it's much better indoors cause churches can be dark and not all of them allow flashes. Then again there's some much faster primes that would do a better job in low light.
2,8 IS is too heavy for me.
You think about 135f2 for church?

[reprazent]

@reprazent. That's fantastic! I never would have thought a shot of something "ordinary" like that could look so interesting.

thanks! I'm very pleased with the result too. the original picture before pp looked nothing special at all I can tell you :p

[agv8or]

2,8 IS is too heavy for me.
You think about 135f2 for church?

The 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS are both very good lighter alternatives to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS plus they are half the cost. They are both very sharp even when shot wide open. With the newer dslr's you can do a lot of cropping so you can frame loser with the 135L and crop later. You'll give up a little depth of field over the 200mm @ f/2.8 but you can't have everything.

[DigiNon]

I just placed the order on this lens refurbished from Canon. Can't wait to put it to use. I have read so much about this lens being extremely sharp and it being the second best zoom lens ever made by Canon right behind the f2.8 IS II.

[willytee]

Would this lens be any good on a T2i. I know it may be silly to put a more expensive lens on a less expensive camera... I just purchased the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM took a few snap shots with it and i am on the wall about it... I had been looking at some of the photos in this thread and they are simply amazing. Do I buy? :P

[thenextguy]

Would this lens be any good on a T2i.

Yes.

I know it may be silly to put a more expensive lens on a less expensive camera

Not at all.

Do I buy? :P

Yes!

[willytee]

Yes.

Not at all.

Yes!

Are there any sample pictures you could direct me to with it on a T2i? (Sample photos) Obviously I plan on upgrading my camera eventually. More than likely i will take the 70-300 back that i bought today.

[Ricardo222]

I agree with Steve...good glass is always worth while. Camera bodies are often upgraded...good lenses don't need to be. (By and large!)

[nakizimbo]

Would this lens be any good on a T2i. I know it may be silly to put a more expensive lens on a less expensive camera... I just purchased the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM took a few snap shots with it and i am on the wall about it... I had been looking at some of the photos in this thread and they are simply amazing. Do I buy? :P

I have just faced the same dilemma. I have the lesser entry model 450D and just a few days a go received my new 70-200 F4 IS lens. Justification to myself on spending the big dollar was that it will last for years and I can always upgrade the body later. Have only taken a couple of quick pics ( so far and they are sharp and the lens focuses very quickly.

[sudipto_roy]

Would this lens be any good on a T2i. I know it may be silly to put a more expensive lens on a less expensive camera... I just purchased the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM took a few snap shots with it and i am on the wall about it... I had been looking at some of the photos in this thread and they are simply amazing. Do I buy? :P

If you have a limited budget, put all your money in the lens and the lowest amount in the body. The difference that a good lens makes to an image is unbelievable. On the other hand, at a basic level there isn't much perceptible difference in image quality between an entry level DSLR camera and a higher end one, especially if it involves just sharing your photographs online or making a few small prints. Camera bodies make a difference when you are shooting for large format printing etc.

[willytee]

Thanks guys. Since photography is a hobby, yet expensive one at that, I don't plan on getting out of it anytime soon and I have invested alot of time and money into it. Anyways, I think i will take the 70-300mm back and order the L. Im almost sure I will be able to tell the difference in quality.

Sometimes your convincing ways are bad :P. Thanks for the help none the less.

[Jaydel]

I got my 70-200L IS USM last April 12, all I can say that its the best decision I made. I'm just a newbie and I was planning to buy 70-200 F4 non-IS and UWA 10-22, but then decided to buy this lens because of the photos I saw here. My lens is sharp and the weight if just fine. Although the price is a bit high, but still worth it. I started with Tamron 70-300 and 18-200 lens but i was not satisfied with the IQ and sold it and then I researched what lens is good and found this site. Thanks for all the photos you posted it helped me a lot to decide. I want to post some of my shots but don't know how to post it here, just new with this. Hope you can help me with this. Thanks.

[Mick5]

Hi jadel if you want to upload photo here just click underneath post "Reply " then where the text message whit box there scroll down and one button there called "Manage Attachments" brows the image and select UPLOAD when its done same window underneath close window and you will back on same White text message just click under the white box Submit.
Make sure you image size wont exceed 1024*768 and size must be under 150KB.

Thanks

[musashi]

some pics this month. its nice to finally go out to take some pics. i've been in the dump with my my gear lately, thinking that it's too much for me(it probably is) and i can't justify keeping it all since i don't use it much. so i'm trying to take more pics to help me decide if i'm going to keep everything or not.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f629f305926a036af8a62fb337a356bceff17a5d0ba4ef0dca 3022c6ce8b969c6g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/b891f54b98b3ee2afe1027a26c07027192a9e47279c23af7f3 fa3f24ae1981436g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/2f31995e191ee8dd079cc31097b7d714b2b9ceb043b68649c6 a85718f9e632036g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/96057c0e1df8f8c00ee7035a35e37e1bf6266bbb76d703d203 378e908b8ef63f6g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/450e80f999f7f074a1b068e5379868b9f8bc7297fc7661d9c4 89cafee2d5551f6g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/6f9a90aa0a0b2a45ae3009cd38ee029755a958523540fc7ee8 cc61116da21f9d6g.jpg

[musashi]

one more for the road, handheld, 100% crop only because it looks like a big dot on the actual size file. lol.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/8449914e7132aada3ac0b78226a4c1e7bd3bd58d3b51c8c018 613f1b710cfd056g.jpg

[alwaySleepy]

Did you use a TC Musashi?

[musashi]

No tc, just cropped it. I just made sure i was -2 ec coz the metering was messed up coz almost the whole frame was black and its blowing out the moon. It took me a while before i noticed it. Actually i tried doing hdr shots and noticed that the underexposed image was yielding the best results so i just played with the neg ec after that. I can post the actual pic if you would like.

[targut]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5671518001_9ff488ce1a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h-studio/5671518001/)
Clematis (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h-studio/5671518001/)

[Zerimar]

Gotta love this lens! I wish I shot with mine more as I used to do, but I mainly shoot my 85 now for obvious reasons :|

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5672648840_cb61750d3a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5672648840/)
Christmas Converse (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5672648840/) by RickrPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickrphoto/), on Flickr

[Big C]

I don't think I'll ever sell this lens. So sharp!

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5268/5673869132_6e58302719_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmpixels/5673869132/)
IMG_1885 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmpixels/5673869132/) by Chris Minshall (http://www.flickr.com/people/cmpixels/), on Flickr

[alwaySleepy]

No tc, just cropped it. I just made sure i was -2 ec coz the metering was messed up coz almost the whole frame was black and its blowing out the moon. It took me a while before i noticed it. Actually i tried doing hdr shots and noticed that the underexposed image was yielding the best results so i just played with the neg ec after that. I can post the actual pic if you would like.

I see, I wil have to try it tonight. thanks for the tip

[jonneymendoza]

I have just faced the same dilemma. I have the lesser entry model 450D and just a few days a go received my new 70-200 F4 IS lens. Justification to myself on spending the big dollar was that it will last for years and I can always upgrade the body later. Have only taken a couple of quick pics ( so far and they are sharp and the lens focuses very quickly.
If i had £900 to spend on the 70-200 f4 IS, i would save a bit more and get the f2.8 for only 200 pounds more

[Ricardo222]

If i had £900 to spend on the 70-200 f4 IS, i would save a bit more and get the f2.8 for only 200 pounds more

If you need the speed...good choice. If you need the sharpness, go with the f4 IS. Unless you can afford the 2.8 Mk II...then you've got sharpness AND speed!

And weight. The f4 is very light.

[reprazent]

If i had £900 to spend on the 70-200 f4 IS, i would save a bit more and get the f2.8 for only 200 pounds more

you mean getting the 2.8 non IS? Definitely not my choice...

[Ricardo222]

you mean getting the 2.8 non IS? Definitely not my choice...

I think he means the IS version, the non IS isn't 200 English pounds dearer than the F4 I suspect.

If he means the non IS then I definitely agree.

[jonneymendoza]

you mean getting the 2.8 non IS? Definitely not my choice...
yes the none IS is only slightly more then the f4 IS.

whats more important though? speed or IS? IS is great to have but speed is far more important IMO.

IS is pointless against moving objects as well

[Ricardo222]

yes the none IS is only slightly more then the f4 IS.

whats more important though? speed or IS? IS is great to have but speed is far more important IMO.

IS is pointless against moving objects as well

IQ...Image Quality rules!
Unless you ALWAYS shoot action, that is. Movement or camera shake counts for a huge number of ruined shots, so speed is important, and if you can't use a tripod then IS is useful.
You are the only one who can draw those distinctions I'm afraid.

[reprazent]

Without IS this lens is pretty much limited to outdoor shooting, and useless indoors. That one stop difference to me isn't fast at all. When I spend this kind of money I want to be able use the lens in any condition. Not to mention I couldn't handhold without IS at 200mm or when a TC is attached. The added weight is another disadvantage. This is ofcourse personal. Either way, I'd always want IS on a lens that does tele. Being it the f/4 or f/2.8

[targut]

I find IS quite useful but sometimes it has to be off.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5677039086_5925098093_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h-studio/5677039086/)
Midday (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h-studio/5677039086/)

[mtimber]

Taken yesterday:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5680440428_fb11a48cb9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51608005@N03/5680440428/)
Young man.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51608005@N03/5680440428/) by mtimber1971 (http://www.flickr.com/people/51608005@N03/), on Flickr

[mtimber]

^^very harsh sun, but I loved the capture.

[jonneymendoza]

IQ...Image Quality rules!
Unless you ALWAYS shoot action, that is. Movement or camera shake counts for a huge number of ruined shots, so speed is important, and if you can't use a tripod then IS is useful.
You are the only one who can draw those distinctions I'm afraid.
IS doesnt improve IQ. it reduces camera shake. thats it. but a lower F number increases light and therefore you get sharper images as your shutter speeds will be very high.

Light is a VERY important feature of a image. You will get far more use and versatility on a F2.8 NONE IS of this lens compared to F4 IS

[Ricardo222]

IS doesnt improve IQ. it reduces camera shake. thats it. but a lower F number increases light and therefore you get sharper images as your shutter speeds will be very high.

Light is a VERY important feature of a image. You will get far more use and versatility on a F2.8 NONE IS of this lens compared to F4 IS

Well of course, thats fundamental. But what is IQ?...I was assuming people would be smart enough to know that I meant the end result, and camera shake reduces image quality in anyone's book, but why nit-pick?...the answer is still the same...we each have to make up our own minds about priorities.

[Markitos]

1.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5685444326_d9e2ef3e01_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5685444326/)
zoo-1591 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5685444326/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

2.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5685444514_840c8dc4f3_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5685444514/)
zoo-1665 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5685444514/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

3.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5065/5684874317_4a96e4417d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684874317/)
zoo-1768 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684874317/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

4.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5684874651_0037f255a1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684874651/)
zoo-1778 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684874651/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

5.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5684874915_b83a035610_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684874915/)
zoo-1821 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684874915/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

6. Albino Alligator
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5685445430_1c466b2d68_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5685445430/)
zoo-1852 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5685445430/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

7.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5684875191_dd9326b1fe_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684875191/)
zoo-1910 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684875191/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

8.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5684875371_27f0df0dc4_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684875371/)
zoo-2035 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/markschuelerphoto/5684875371/) by markitos57 (http://www.flickr.com/people/markschuelerphoto/), on Flickr

[Zerimar]

really nice animal shots! liking the black and white elephants!

[lensmen]

No tc, just cropped it. I just made sure i was -2 ec coz the metering was messed up coz almost the whole frame was black and its blowing out the moon. It took me a while before i noticed it. Actually i tried doing hdr shots and noticed that the underexposed image was yielding the best results so i just played with the neg ec after that. I can post the actual pic if you would like.

For my moon shots, I will use spot metering.
Meter on the bright part of the moon (which is the moon anyway).
EV -2/3 or so, and the moon will be just fine. with all the details.

[kshark]

Just got mine back from Canon Factory Service. Autofocus was sticking and even manual focus was difficult, the ring just seemed to slip. Their notes say the following:

Your product has been examined and it was found that the lens barrel assembly was bent causing the autofocus to stick. The lens barrel was replaced and product functions confirmed.

This was interesting because I'm not hard on equipment, but thought I'd pass this along in case anyone else has similar symptoms.

[Ricardo222]

Just got mine back from Canon Factory Service. Autofocus was sticking and even manual focus was difficult, the ring just seemed to slip. Their notes say the following:

Your product has been examined and it was found that the lens barrel assembly was bent causing the autofocus to stick. The lens barrel was replaced and product functions confirmed.

This was interesting because I'm not hard on equipment, but thought I'd pass this along in case anyone else has similar symptoms.

Good to hear it's working again. I suspect it's not about being hard on your gear...sometimes these things just happen!

Mind you, ever since I started taking photographs over forty years ago I've given my gear what would be considered by most as "a hard time"...Antarctica, mines, mountains, bulldozers, ocean sailing, climbing in and out of ship structures...etc...and have only ever broken one lens...a tripod blew over. I guess I've been lucky.

[Big C]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5682994750_6affefb015_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmpixels/5682994750/)
IMG_3203 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmpixels/5682994750/) by Chris Minshall (http://www.flickr.com/people/cmpixels/), on Flickr

[mulchie]

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee453/mulchiee/fox4.jpg

Local litter of 3. 100% crop. Living in a den up the road.

[DigiNon]

Hey guys I just recently received my copy of this lens, refurbished from canon. I took it outside for a few shots of my dog and wasn't very pleased with the sharpness compared to most photos here. I did just a little test and shot a box of cereal facing flat to the lens at 70mm and 200mm. Here are the 100% crops:

70mm
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2370/70mm.jpg

200mm
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/6862/200mm.jpg

Focus was on the blue "Special". This was taken on a tripod, IS off, with remote shutter. Let me know if it seems ok or if it's just my OCD. I am admittedly a pixel peeper but I just want to know if it's supposed to be like this or not. Is there better tests I can try? Thanks in advance.

[targut]

According to the size, it must be done at MFD. This lens is known to be not so good at MFD as it is normally. Better take some "real" shots.

[nikmar08]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5690040596_dfa869e5f4_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5303/5686404123_95bfeec3ab_b.jpg

[mtimber]

^^Love the colour in the first one, what focal length did you shoot it with?

[nikmar08]

@Mark - Cheers!! The FL was 106mm.
Here're some more...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5309/5691039204_10fcb19a5c_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5691048374_fb50d71d5c_b.jpg

[nikmar08]

Jack Fruit
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5686401583_8ef91cb544_b.jpg

Banana Flower
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5686963576_f4c9c9b3fa_b.jpg

[kshark]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5699668143_03631a69e2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5699668143/)
BMW CCA Autocross (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5699668143/) by Brett Kiger (http://www.flickr.com/people/51442732@N03/), on Flickr

[Kekumba]

A nice overcast day at the airport gave me this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5700384257_eddb9d758a_z.jpg

[Ricardo222]

According to the size, it must be done at MFD. This lens is known to be not so good at MFD as it is normally. Better take some "real" shots.

I agree....put the lens through it's paces in the real world with a range of pics and report back...if you've got a dud it will be easy enough for you to see as this lens should deliver crisp sharp pictures under field conditions.

Some lenses excel at MFD, like the 300 f4, but as Targut says, this one seems to prefer a little distance. Funny thing is that it works great with extension tubes, though again I tend to set the focus mid way and use the zoom to focus...I don't know why that works better, but there you are!

[jusmebabe]

Couple of shots from my Canada Trip a week or so ago.

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p426370876-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p311331591-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p93624950-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p469395076-4.jpg

Everyone one of your pics are beautiful but number 3 blows me away..

[jusmebabe]

Finally getting some decent weather!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/2276395109_8a025c6c75_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2277186880_92791c7033_o.jpg

The 2nd pic looks like a post card. Great capture.

[nakizimbo]

I agree....put the lens through it's paces in the real world with a range of pics and report back...if you've got a dud it will be easy enough for you to see as this lens should deliver crisp sharp pictures under field conditions.

Some lenses excel at MFD, like the 300 f4, but as Targut says, this one seems to prefer a little distance. Funny thing is that it works great with extension tubes, though again I tend to set the focus mid way and use the zoom to focus...I don't know why that works better, but there you are!

Hi Ricardo
I enjoy looking at your Nelson pics and your high praise for the 70-200 F4 L - so much so that I have now brought one! Quick question for the uninitiated. Please can you explain to me what you mean by "I tend to set the focus mid way and use the zoom to focus". Are you saying that it is better to focus at mid zoom and then zoom in ?? Cheers.

[Ricardo222]

Hi Ricardo
I enjoy looking at your Nelson pics and your high praise for the 70-200 F4 L - so much so that I have now brought one! Quick question for the uninitiated. Please can you explain to me what you mean by "I tend to set the focus mid way and use the zoom to focus". Are you saying that it is better to focus at mid zoom and then zoom in ?? Cheers.

Only when using it with extension tubes, Nakizimbo...I haven't quite figured why it works better that way, but it seems to.

I have a perfectly good macro lens, but the 70-200 and 17-40 make such a great walk-around kit and taking the extension tunes adds little weight to my kit when I'm walking in the hills.

Here's an example..

[Zerimar]

Hands down favorite studio lens. It's sharp, light weight and doesn't matter that it's not f2.8 because you're shooting stopped down anyways..

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/5698828982_f115d5f7b8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5698828982/)
Kayla Varley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5698828982/) by RickrPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickrphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5691980916_bb21ca5251_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5691980916/)
Kayla Varley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5691980916/) by RickrPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickrphoto/), on Flickr

[Ricardo222]

Rick, those pics would convince me if I didn't already own one! Beautiful.

[kshark]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5225/5607799321_b8e03019d9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5607799321/)
Old Car City (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5607799321/) by Brett Kiger (http://www.flickr.com/people/51442732@N03/), on Flickr

[landth]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5225/5607799321_b8e03019d9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5607799321/)
Old Car City (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51442732@N03/5607799321/) by Brett Kiger (http://www.flickr.com/people/51442732@N03/), on Flickr

I don't typically like HDR much, but I do really like this.... :)

[kshark]

I don't typically like HDR much, but I do really like this.... :)

Thanks! I like more "realistic" HDR than the way over-processed look that you see sometimes.

[Zerimar]

Rick, those pics would convince me if I didn't already own one! Beautiful.

Thank you!

[Mick5]

Hi kshark i like you HDR image would you tell me what software you used to made nice hdr?

thanks

[jonneymendoza]

Without IS this lens is pretty much limited to outdoor shooting, and useless indoors. That one stop difference to me isn't fast at all. When I spend this kind of money I want to be able use the lens in any condition. Not to mention I couldn't handhold without IS at 200mm or when a TC is attached. The added weight is another disadvantage. This is ofcourse personal. Either way, I'd always want IS on a lens that does tele. Being it the f/4 or f/2.8
I dont understand. A faster lens lets in "more" ligth making it "ideal" for indoor shooting compared to a slow lens.

i still dont understand why people prefer IS over a faster lens. low F means more light people??

IS only prevents camera shake

[toffiloff]

Playing around with a friend's lens, fun!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/5710802231_8512a58f9c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/toffiloff/5710802231/)
Pow Pow (http://www.flickr.com/photos/toffiloff/5710802231/) by toffiloff (http://www.flickr.com/people/toffiloff/), on Flickr

[reprazent]

I dont understand. A faster lens lets in "more" ligth making it "ideal" for indoor shooting compared to a slow lens.

i still dont understand why people prefer IS over a faster lens. low F means more light people??

IS only prevents camera shake

It seems like you are blinded by the word fast.
In this case the f/2.8 has (only)1 stop advantage.

Meanwhile the 70-200 F4 IS has a 4 stops Image Stabilizer, even though in reality it's closer to 3 stops, I could handhold this lens at much slower shutterspeeds (thus letting in more light) than without IS.

[kshark]

Hi kshark i like you HDR image would you tell me what software you used to made nice hdr?

thanks

Photomatix, I still find it to be my favorite. I've tried Photoshop CS5 and Nik HDR Efex Pro, but I seem to always go back to Photomatix.

[michgirl]

I dont understand. A faster lens lets in "more" ligth making it "ideal" for indoor shooting compared to a slow lens.

i still dont understand why people prefer IS over a faster lens. low F means more light people??

IS only prevents camera shake

Low F does mean more light; I have two f/1.8 lens, so I do understand the difference. However, with my f/1.8s, I shoot more in the f/4-f/8 range, but again, I do appreciate the 1.8.

What I have found to be true for myself, is I think the pictures turns out sharper with flash, than without. Lighting is everything - both f/stops and flash properly used.
And it becomes about trade-offs and what is most important to the person purchasing the lens. Two things that swayed me to this lens was price and weight. I want a lighter lens and the cost of this lens is pretty much my limit on how much I am willing to spend on a lens.
Also, before purchasing this lens, I used my f/1.8 lens - took a shot at f/4 and one at f/2.8 and it really was not that much of a difference ~ at least NOT for me. I am thrilled with this purchase and I have no more lens lust - I am pretty satisfied with what I own and love the results I have learned to achieve.

[jonneymendoza]

Hi, i beleive the IS version enables 4 stops?

Anyways, i tried this lens out in a shop today and the difference when IS is enables and disables is astounding. im now a believer and a fan of this lens :)

[hondafans]

OK, lets get back to seeing some pictures. Most agree its an outstanding lens period.

[Giom]

I recently discovered this thread, which inspired me to take out old trusty again and take some pics in the garden. These were taken hand held as the sun went down behind the trees, so, pretty dark. Still, I managed some sharp images at iso-200.

Btw, it's been a great experience to go through the history of this thread and marvel at all you peeps' beautiful photos!

[Giom]

This is probably one of my luckiest shots ever. In reality, it was so dark that I could hardly see the car to focus on. You can already see the street lights in the b/g and reflecting on the car.

The shot was taken hand held at 1/4sec, ISO800 and F4 (obviously). Afterwards I tried a few more, but they just didn't come out this clear. I've also added a 50% cropped image.

[reprazent]

Anyways, i tried this lens out in a shop today and the difference when IS is enables and disables is astounding. im now a believer and a fan of this lens :)

:mrgreen:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5603242955_53ab026a39_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tequilazu/5603242955/)

[Zerimar]

Old photo... Took this with my 40D the day I got the lens. I was 16 at the time.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5263/5634163482_c26d685ae2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5634163482/)
Brown Pelican (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5634163482/) by RickrPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickrphoto/), on Flickr

[Ricardo222]

Nice one Rick...you must have been pleased! This is from one of my very first outings...and I had no idea then that it would become my most used lens.

[drew]

Two samples I just posted in the 7D thread

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/5717744492_63e399e23f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717744492/)
Sad that the light is leaving (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717744492/) by drew_dslr (http://www.flickr.com/people/drew_dslr/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/5717179055_9aa5ec87cc_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717179055/)
/r/PictureChallenge #22 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717179055/) by drew_dslr (http://www.flickr.com/people/drew_dslr/), on Flickr

The MFD isn't the greatest for macro, but it works well for flowers :)

[Giom]

Two samples I just posted in the 7D thread

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/5717744492_63e399e23f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717744492/)
Sad that the light is leaving (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717744492/) by drew_dslr (http://www.flickr.com/people/drew_dslr/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/5717179055_9aa5ec87cc_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717179055/)
/r/PictureChallenge #22 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_dslr/5717179055/) by drew_dslr (http://www.flickr.com/people/drew_dslr/), on Flickr

The MFD isn't the greatest for macro, but it works well for flowers :)

That 7D is amaizing! So are these pics - feels like you can touch them. Did you use a flash with the bottom one?

[drew]

Nope. All natural lighting. I did have some early evening front lighting that helped, probably.

Thanks for the comments!

[Giom]

I would like to get some feedback from you guys, if I may. The whole idea behind this shoot is to see how far I can push the f4 IS in low light and hand held.

1) Would you be happy with the noise level zoomed in at 100%? ISO @ 800 to get decent shutter speed (hand held).

2) What are those lens artifacts? I've never shot into the sun like this, so I wouldn't know if this is normal for this lens or not.

3) What was the darkest environment you've used this lens at without flash?

Thanks!

[drew]

Giom,

At a "four stop" improvement with IS, you can "hope" for 1/20 as a bare minimum on a static subject. With a human subject, I'd go no lower than 1/60 - 1/100 personally. That being said, the photo is under exposed. I'd drop the shutter to 1/250 (or 1/180 since you seem to be using 1/2 stops) to work towards a better exposed subject. Higher ISOs demand better exposure technique to minimize noise.

Those "lens artifacts" seem... I'm not sure. Are you using a filter?

[Giom]

Hi Drew. Thank you for the reply.

I'm not using any special filters other than the standard uv filter they had recomended for the L series glass.

I am intrigued, tho, as to what you mean by better exposure techniques to minimize noise. But my most curious question would be; would you be happy with this shot? Should I be using a tri/mono pod in these low light situations? A flash maybe? Or, am I over stepping the abilities of the lens?

Thanks!

[reza187]

all 200mm F4.0 on 5D classic
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/5719709786_67257af762_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reza_arya/5719709786/)
IMG_1553-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reza_arya/5719709786/) by reza_arya (http://www.flickr.com/people/reza_arya/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2546/5719150035_89f7db356e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reza_arya/5719150035/)
IMG_1555-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reza_arya/5719150035/) by reza_arya (http://www.flickr.com/people/reza_arya/), on Flickr

[drew]

If you were to repeat the shot (in the exact same situation) here's what I'd recommend:

Do it twice
1) Ensure you have the hood on. Drop the shutter speed to 1/250 or 1/180. The shutter speed will still be high enough to freeze motion of the subject and the IS should ensure the camera movement is taken care of. Move the subject (or yourself) enough to kill that light on the (camera) right side to give the subject a nice rim light.

2) Do the same as above, but without any UV filter.

I believe the T2i has a good enough sensor and the lens is fantastic. I don't believe that shot required outside stabilization (a tri/mono pod) There seems to be enough light to not use flash, but you might get away with it if you want. Just turn down the power (manual) or dial in -1 to -2 FEC (ETTL, flash exposure compensation). I mean this with absolute respect and do not mean it to be rude in anyway, I just believe that "practice makes perfect" and that you, with the gear you had, made an even better shot just making some better choices.

I'd be happy with the composition* but not the exposure. If you shot RAW, you could probably massage it in Lightroom/Aperture/ACR/etc. and add some fill manually. I am also a perfectionist.

Edit: Compensation != composition

[Giom]

That's great advice Drew, thank you! You're hitting the nail on the head with "practice makes perfect", even a great lens like this, require some degree of skill and experience in less than ideal situations, to get the perfect shot. All part of the creativity and science we're using to create art.

I did indeed use RAW, always do, here's a better exposed version.

Thanks again!

[Ricardo222]

^^Interesting stuff from you guys...always helpful to learn. That's what's great about POTN!

Can't for the life of me figure those green artifacts...trying to see a pattern refracted from the highlights beyond but can't figure it. I shoot into the sun all the time and have never had a problem like that.

Here's a shot from yesterday...something much easier....

[Giom]

^^Interesting stuff from you guys...always helpful to learn. That's what's great about POTN!...

I know, such a pitty I hadn't discovered this site earlyer!

Can't for the life of me figure those green artifacts...trying to see a pattern refracted from the highlights beyond but can't figure it. I shoot into the sun all the time and have never had a problem like that.

That's quite interesting. Do you use a UV filter when you shoot into the sun? But, I also had a good look at those highlights from the sun. It's the only thing that makes sense, that and the filter... I'll try to re-create the scenario this afternoon like Drew suggested.

Here's a shot from yesterday...something much easier....

That's a great shot of the little bird... how on earth do you get to be so close to them. Must be quite tame. The composition is also great.

[Ricardo222]

I know, such a pitty I hadn't discovered this site earlyer!



That's quite interesting. Do you use a UV filter when you shoot into the sun? But, I also had a good look at those highlights from the sun. It's the only thing that makes sense, that and the filter... I'll try to re-create the scenario this afternoon like Drew suggested.

That's a great shot of the little bird... how on earth do you get to be so close to them. Must be quite tame. The composition is also great.

Yes I do use a protecting filter...against the advice of many on POTN...but working around the shipyard here where I have had paint overspray and all sorts of abrasive dust on my filters, I put up with them. But I use the best Hoyas and change them at need!

The fantails are quite tame, but they hardly sop moving so you have to ba alert...that was about a 25% crop so I wasn't THAT close...patience, as always, is the word!

[Giom]

Apologies for flooding this thread with this subject!

I have indeed recreated yesterdays scene this afternoon with surpising results. No UV filter - however I believe there was no difference in image quality what so ever. I did place the kid in front of the sun, so, no artifacts - even tho it did show up again without the UV filter in other shots.

As you can see from the attachments, I was quite a bit closer, with a much slower shutter speed (1/60) and ISO (200). But, what I did change, was to shoot in bursts of 5 and was able to choose the sharpest one. I found that for every one out of 5 bursts, there was one clear winner - all hand held with IS obviously.

[Ricardo222]

Now that is sharp...nothing wrong with that!

[drew]

That's a great tip one of us should've recommended to you.

There is actually a use for "spray n' pray" once in a while ;)

[Ricardo222]

Sunrise, Friday 13th

[nikmar08]

Two samples I just posted in the 7D thread
...
The MFD isn't the greatest for macro, but it works well for flowers :)

+1. Exactly the same experience I have had with this lens.

[gregr2]

Our new puppy:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2249/5728242352_8831a02264_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregandmellina/5728242352/)
Jacks and ~M (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregandmellina/5728242352/) by Greg and Mellina (http://www.flickr.com/people/gregandmellina/), on Flickr

[kbColorado]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j100/kbtrans/WindowsonWestcliffeVflickr2.jpg

[BrandonSi]

From the last few days..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/5727766295_135a4a2ee5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5727766295/)
The Crowd (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5727766295/) by Βrandon (http://www.flickr.com/people/tycn/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/5728317060_b93e342bf0_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5728317060/)
The Crowd (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5728317060/) by Βrandon (http://www.flickr.com/people/tycn/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2781/5728323536_c22ebc6767_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5728323536/)
The Crowd (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/5728323536/) by Βrandon (http://www.flickr.com/people/tycn/), on Flickr

[jonneymendoza]

sharp as per usual. excellent lens. Good for street photography?

[mtimber]

^^bit big and obvious for street photography in my opinion...

Not very discrete. :-)

[Golden^^Boy]

:mrgreen:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5603242955_53ab026a39_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tequilazu/5603242955/)

hey man, its eason..
did you going to the show, where its ?

[Zerimar]

damn sharp lens.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5736266890_90b8e4cbd0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5736266890/)
Molly (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5736266890/) by RickrPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickrphoto/), on Flickr

[moedizzle]

^^^Nice

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/5735151763_cdf2486ff4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiv/5735151763/)

[Ricardo222]

Now there's a sight you don't see every day!

(It's titled "Wrestlers"......)

[Zerimar]

I like it when I shoot a model that can levitate.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/5736181986_5a2987e536_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5736181986/)
Molly (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickrphoto/5736181986/) by RickrPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickrphoto/), on Flickr