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

[gacon1]

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/3361/chonbi2.jpg

89mm, 1/125, f4

[mitchster26]

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/3361/chonbi2.jpg

89mm, 1/125, f4

Good picture, can you tell me what animal it is.

[Permagrin]

I really like this lens. I used to own the 2.8 version but now have this one (since it came out) and will keep it.

it's really sharp thoughout it's range
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/184686148-L.jpg

nice colors
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/182824137-L.jpg

and works great with a 1.4x tc
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/178710438-L.jpg

[SaSi]

I must start by saying how much I initially liked the size, looks and heftiness of the /2.8

I can now say how much better the smaller size and weight of the /4IS is for me, especially when trekking with the gear.

The attached photo is a 100% crop of a shot taken with flash indoors from about 4 meters (12 feet). Shot RAW and converted to JPEG with no sharpening.

[Hedoniste]

Got it 2 days ago. Here are my first tests:

#
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1373/testayc7.jpg

#
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3645/testbor3.jpg

#
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7381/bmwm3with702006zx6.jpg

# 100mm - F4.0 - 1/40 - ISO 200 (WB corrected):
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4797/orangeaau4.jpg

[borneoeye]

http://lh5.google.com/borneoeye/R1JiUDRmThI/AAAAAAAABIY/0DC-XEBpYf4/20071129_BirdPark_30.jpg?imgmax=512

http://lh5.google.com/borneoeye/R3j60fHXyPI/AAAAAAAABpo/dsHzRzPtVaA/20071129_BirdPark_01%20copy.jpg?imgmax=640

[terriyaki]

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6953/mg1660pf6.jpg

[breakdown]

This was with my 70-200 with the 1.4x TC attached. I love this thing. :) (photo taken up in the Canadian Rockies, near Lake Louise)

Love that shot.

[Collin85]

I love this lens.. the image quality is outstanding and the 4-stop IS is nothing short of being a life-saver.

Probably my best lens purchase besides the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

http://www.collinzphotography.com/photos/223558664-L.jpg
http://www.collinzphotography.com/photos/206761481-L.jpg
http://www.collinzphotography.com/photos/209388897-L.jpg
http://www.collinzphotography.com/photos/204993826-L.jpg
http://www.collinzphotography.com/photos/204991440-L.jpg
http://www.collinzphotography.com/photos/232808868-L.jpg

[Hedoniste]

Good set of pics Collin!

For me, it's the best lens that I purchased.

#
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9549/fullhdix7.jpg

#
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7075/robiinetayv6.jpg

#
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4808/boulesaph8.jpg

Ludo

[Collin85]

Thanks Ludo. :) What game is that?

I'm a fan of your water flowing pic.. although I get a strange urge to urinate everytime I see it. :lol:

[Hedoniste]

Thanks Ludo. :) What game is that?

It's Call of Duty 4 (X-Box 360). This game is really nice and immersive!

I'm a fan of your water flowing pic.. although I get a strange urge to urinate everytime I see it. :lol:

:lol:

Ludo

[Collin85]

It's Call of Duty 4 (X-Box 360). This game is really nice and immersive!=

Yeah I thought so. I was thinking about building a new PC (it's been 3 years already).. I've got so many games to catch up on: CoD 4, Supreme Commander, BioShock, Crysis etc.

Ah, why couldn't I have gotten into cheaper hobbies? Like playing the Triangle. :lol:

[Hedoniste]

Yeah I thought so. I was thinking about building a new PC (it's been 3 years already).. I've got so many games to catch up on: CoD 4, Supreme Commander, BioShock, Crysis etc.

Ah, why couldn't I have gotten into cheaper hobbies? Like playing the Triangle. :lol:

:lol:


(I saw your gallery. Nice photographs!)

[hjohnson]

Caught this little guy up near Lake Louise in the Canadian rockies. Don't have a 100% crop available, but if you look at the full size at http://gallery.marspostcards.ca/Rockies07/IMG_1803?full=1 you can make out the hairs on its nose. :)

[philc123]

I love this lens. :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/1852606877_072c2cef85_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/2047523837_ced127de21_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/2048758180_0d9db071e8_o.jpg

[gacon1]

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/3361/chonbi2.jpg

89mm, 1/125, f4

Good picture, can you tell me what animal it is.

@Mitchster : Thank you !
It's a common palm civet.

[Epix]

So what's better for sharp photos, the IS on this lens or the extra 1-stop with the 70-200 f/2.8L?

[fz_za]

My opinion (have not directly compared the different 70-200s): if you are referring to the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8L, then I would say that this lens (70-200 f/4L IS) is better for hand-held shots than the f/2.8L non-IS since the IS will give you more flexibility to get blur-free images than the non-IS will (I think it's 4-stops on this lens because of the IS, vs. the 1-stop you would get with the larger aperture f/2.8 ). If hand-holdability is not a concern, I have read that the f/4L IS is the sharpest optic overall of the 70-200s.

Have a look at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I got the 70-200mm 2.8L IS because I need the fastest shutter speed I can get (I never shoot with a tripod or monopod) and I've found that getting tack sharp images (at 200mm) of a moving subject even at f/2.8 is more difficult than I thought it would be - so I'm glad I did not go with the f/4L IS!

[junzo13]

Some of my test shots using this lens. Cropping and Autolevels in Photoshop applied.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2284/2176995797_dbaa70abb9.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2060/2176995633_563078d486.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2276/2176990503_7458b7acf3.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2177775824_29e651e10b.jpg

I just love this lens (along with my 17-55). It's actually my first L.

[Beski]

I just got this lens, and so far it's been GREAT !!

Here are some of my first Sample Pics: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=432145

[Jostel]

Here are some of my examples, and some chatter from other L owners, and L wanna be owners!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=313689

[HotFuzz]

Can i ask.

I can get the 70-200 F/4 Non-IS now as i have the money. I could get the F/4 IS, but it is £210 more ($400 +-), but i wont be able to get it for a couple of months.
The thing is, i really would like the lens now (trip to London in a couple of weeks and a competition or 2 coming up).

So...............

Do i buy the Non-IS now and cope without IS or do i save up and get the IS version and not have the lens for a couple of months.

My intention at one stage (maybe end of the year) is to get the 2.8 IS, so either one i get i will sell to fund the 2.8


Is IS worth the wait and £210, as i coudl put the £210 toward a 1.4 extender + filters.

[Gravy]

This lens rules! These aren't very exciting shots but I think they do show some of the nice color and sharpness it can produce,
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/2176481964_75664f92b8_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2162/2175641733_934e31b0ed_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2323/2175605615_f628fbdbd9_b.jpg

[mellowd]

I've only just received mine and I'm stuck in the office, but here goes:

200mm
http://mellowd.co.uk/forum/full.jpg

100% crop @ 200mm
http://mellowd.co.uk/forum/crop.jpg

These are jpg straight out of the camera

[smorter]

This is from the other thread, but I thought I should put them in here for archival purposes:

40D JPGs no Post Processing, full pictures as well as centre of the frame crops

1. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2225/2147536549_f15353f93b_b.jpg
1. (100%) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2222/2147537401_429ef2c3f9_o.jpg

2. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2185520572_5cf53338dd_o.jpg
2. (100%) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2184735891_c873bcf419_o.jpg

3. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2224/2184734405_923d8a5e00_o.jpg
3. (100%) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2063/2185523672_f0d50dee02_o.jpg

[JoeW]

This is a great lens. Here's one I took earlier this fall of my sister's dog, Jack. The first is a full image. The second is a tighter crop, still not 100%. Light editing in Lightroom.

[G35Driver]

Can i ask.

I can get the 70-200 F/4 Non-IS now as i have the money. I could get the F/4 IS, but it is £210 more ($400 +-), but i wont be able to get it for a couple of months.
The thing is, i really would like the lens now (trip to London in a couple of weeks and a competition or 2 coming up).

So...............

Do i buy the Non-IS now and cope without IS or do i save up and get the IS version and not have the lens for a couple of months.

My intention at one stage (maybe end of the year) is to get the 2.8 IS, so either one i get i will sell to fund the 2.8


Is IS worth the wait and £210, as i coudl put the £210 toward a 1.4 extender + filters.
personally for me I have to have IS as my hands are not steady, you can purchase the non IS go to your trip to London, after your trip you can sell it an buy the non IS, these glasses keep their resale value very well.

[trailstar]

A cold morning in Norway this weekend

http://www.pbase.com/trond/image/91617488/original.jpg

[studiom]

This lens is simply superb.. I love it.

[JoYork]

Took this one tonight. Am quite pleased with it. Needed some sharpening and contrast adjusting in PP but came out quite well.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2247/2217345366_ef28ef7660.jpg?v=0

Manual exposure mode, 1/100, f/5.6, iso 100 and was taken handheld at 200mm.

[JoYork]

A few more...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2223559674_375f5349d0_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2142/2222665947_50d4f0153d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2074/2222651303_9312d4f925_o.jpg

[Roy Mathers]

Here's one I took an hour or so ago.

[SoundsGood]

Just a quick snap:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t190/Sounds-Good/IMG_0316.jpg?t=1201459242

100% crop:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t190/Sounds-Good/IMG_0316-100crop-1.jpg

[24Peter]

Needing a quick reality check here guys: those of you own (or have at least used) both versions of this lens, was the non-IS version sharper wide open at 200mm? I currently have both and I'm seeing the non-IS is a little sharper (actually "clearer" is perhaps a better word) at 200mm between F4-5. Above F5 they appear equal. (I don't have samples on this computer, otherwise I'd post some crops.) It's only a small difference in favor of the non-IS version, but after reading the reviews and tests on the IS version I was expecting it to be superior all around.

So can anyone with experience with both lenses comment?

[keener]

a black squirrel for the mix. Not much more I can say about this lens that hasn't already been said. How about, "awesome". Has that been said?

[Hogster86]

I really love this lens! I find myself using it so much these days :)

As an example, all the ground shots in this thread were taken with it! :D

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=809071

Worth every penny IMO :)


David :cool:

[borneoeye]

I could even get shots like these, love it.:lol:
http://lh4.google.com/borneoeye/R58pM4t9mXI/AAAAAAAAB50/bocbew4JNFE/Bird07.jpg?imgmax=512
http://lh4.google.com/borneoeye/R58pf4t9mZI/AAAAAAAAB6I/YlqthZNt2V0/Bird09.jpg?imgmax=512
http://lh3.google.com/borneoeye/R58pUot9mYI/AAAAAAAAB58/OpSzOCn41JU/Bird08.jpg?imgmax=512
Since my brick is under repair in Canon, I have this on my body 100% now.

[mitchster26]

London river Police on a cold February morning. Cropped and tiny sharpen.

1/250 sec @ f5.6 ISO 200, zoom 200mm.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e11/mitchster26/IMG_3609.jpg

[HotFuzz]

OK, after selling my 70-200 Non-IS for reasons !!!, im now getting this lens as an "upgrade". Found i wasnt getting as pin sharp as im sure i could when handhled without IS, so think the extra coppers needed to buy this is worth it.

P.S well done Hoster86 on your winning elements shot week ago Monday. Great image.

[Hogster86]

Woh! Are you a member of the Guildford Photographic Society then? What's your name?

Thanks! :D


David :D

[JoYork]

Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/2255714969_dce017bff3_o.jpg


Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2044/2255708433_20157ed0a0_o.jpg


Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/10
Focal Length: 144 mm
ISO Speed: 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2256506734_16a6f97557_o.jpg

[fz_za]

Nice shots, Jo. Did that car survive? And that lady needs to clean her lens' front element :D

[HotFuzz]

Woh! Are you a member of the Guildford Photographic Society then? What's your name?

Thanks! :D


David :D

Hello mate,
i came up and introduced myself (though i told you my user name was Kinchy !!!!!).
Good photos yesterday, little harsh on the paraglider, but gotta be happy with the forest shot. Leigh

I took stock of this lens today and WOW.

I took some random shots of my alarm clock and got steady shots at 1/10 sec :shock: (Ok the ISO was up at 800, but it still ooked great)

I think im going to love this lens, and if it wasnt for the fact that it doesnt fit in my Crumpler 7MDH on my camera it would be on there all the time

LOVE IT.

[Hogster86]

Hehe it was nice to meet you mate! :)

It certainly is an incredibly sharp lens! :cool: Enjoy it!


David :D

[jjmucker]

Hello mate,
i came up and introduced myself (though i told you my user name was Kinchy !!!!!).
Good photos yesterday, little harsh on the paraglider, but gotta be happy with the forest shot. Leigh

I took stock of this lens today and WOW.

I took some random shots of my alarm clock and got steady shots at 1/10 sec :shock: (Ok the ISO was up at 800, but it still ooked great)

I think im going to love this lens, and if it wasnt for the fact that it doesnt fit in my Crumpler 7MDH on my camera it would be on there all the time

LOVE IT.


Glad you like it mate. Its a stunner eh. If not for needing the 2.8 IS for weddings etc i'd still have that one :D

[HotFuzz]

A Robin on a VERY dull day.


http://kinchy.smugmug.com/photos/254703197_dCqxV-L.jpg

[Hogster86]

Click HERE (http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/92971211) for a full-resolution image from this lens taken with my 40D. Warning: 10MB file.

F/16, 1/8s, ISO200, triopd, Remote Utilty, shot in RAW, some sharpness added, saved as a full-quality JPEG.

It's darn impressive!! :D

Cheers!


David :D

[HotFuzz]

A couple from up top of St Marthas Hill in Guildford.

98mm, f/5.6, 1/1600s, ISO100
http://kinchy.smugmug.com/photos/255096381_Wo3uW-L.jpg



241mm, f/5.6, 1/400, ISO100
http://kinchy.smugmug.com/photos/255096343_6W7Eo-L.jpg

[Gravy]

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

[mom22]

Gravy,

Very beautiful. Where were those taken?

[Hogster86]

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/93170221/original.jpg

Part of the trees in the left of this shot (taken with 17-55 F2.8 ):

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/93134691/original.jpg


David :)

[Gravy]

These pictures were taken in Germany along the "Romantic Rhine". It is a great stretch of the river running from Bingen to Koblenz with a lot of castles. The castle pictured is Marksburg.


Gravy,

Very beautiful. Where were those taken?

[rathke]

I recently got this lens and love it. Used the EF 25II tube for this Daffodil today. Very narrow DOF here. It does have applications in close up work. Wonderful lens, working on bringing out it's best:rolleyes:

[TooManyShots]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2288/2216576043_db52d5357a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2216576043/)

[fz_za]

Fantastic bird shot, TooManyShots! Were you very close or is that cropped?

[Hogster86]

Superb bird shot!! :D

Took this this morning ... really pushing the 40D to get useable shots in these conditions! It was very gloomy and foggy and I had to underexpose by 1 1/3 stops to keep the subject still!

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/93202642/original.jpg
1/15s f/4.0 at 165.0mm iso3200

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/93202880/original.jpg
1/15s f/4.0 at 200.0mm iso3200

Tripod was used.

Cheers!


David :)

[fz_za]

David, nice product placement (Frosties) there :lol:

[TooManyShots]

Yes. Somewhat close. I was at a city park square, Union Square Park. People were feeding sparrows and starling. I was close enough for this sparrow to notice me. :)

Fantastic bird shot, TooManyShots! Were you very close or is that cropped?

[GovMule]

Absolutely love this lens. Crispy !

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j177/GovMule/for%20POTN/IMG_6865_wm.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j177/GovMule/for%20POTN/IMG_6865_100copy.jpg

[JoYork]

It's a bug's life! :)

[Hogster86]

Squirrel having his breakfast :)

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/93825554/original.jpg


David :D

[zooxanthellae]

Got any 100% crops of the head David? Got a new 20-700 is f4 myself and im not sure if its soft so a 100% crop of yours would be great.Nice pic by the way.

[Roy Mathers]

How will a 100% crop of David's picture show if your lens is soft?

[zooxanthellae]

It wont,his looks sharp though so it will help with comparison.

[HotFuzz]

My first and last shot of a duck with my 40D
1/80s
f/5.6
ISO200
280mm

http://kinchy.smugmug.com/photos/261824804_S83WR-M.jpg

[Hogster86]

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/93834944/original.jpg

100% crop ... but has had some noise reduction and sharpening ...


David :)

PS. HERE (http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/92971211) is a full resolution image from the 70-200 F4 IS, shot in RAW and converted to JPEG - warning, big file!

[zooxanthellae]

Cheers David,just what i wanted.Looks like i may have been pixel peeping far too much as mine looks very similar.

[debaire]

David, nice product placement (Frosties) there :lol:

Are Frosties like Frosted Flakes? They're GGRRRREAT!

[Spaced_K]

Got at least one duck with this lens (and 1.4 extender at the time) :

http://kinchy.smugmug.com/photos/261400552_u6z2s-L.jpg

[Hogster86]

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94098174/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94098172/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94098173/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94098198/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94098209/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94098208/original.jpg


David :)

[egordon99]

I know, not a duck (sorry!), but managed to catch this deer last week. As for my impressions of the 70-200mm f/4 IS, I LOVE it! It's not too heavy, build quality is great, fast autofocus, and the image quality is nothing to sneeze at. I wavered between the f/4 and f/2.8 versions (who hasn't) but I think the f/2.8 would have been too heavy for me. I have an 85mm f/1.8 and I might grab a 135mm f/2.0 so I'm covered when I need speed (As I've found f/2.8 can even be too slow at times)

http://evangordonphotography.com/canon/70200_deer.jpg

[MikRad]

Those Chairs have awesome colour, great photo.

Here are 4 from the F1 in Melbourne on Saturday......my goodness it was HOT!!

[MikRad]

....probably should include at least one F1 car...

Just got this lens for my Rebel XTi so these were first ever shots..... and that lens ROCKS compared to my 75-300mm IS i had before....the Image Stabilizer on this one makes it easy to take a photo of a FA/18 going past at 1000kmhr!

Mik

[MikRad]

oh yes attach the photos.... hmmm whoops!

[TATER64]

shot at 1/500s,F4.0,ISO400,110mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/TLRspud/IMG_0261.jpg
Love this lens

[usnameless]

No pp except cropping. ;)

http://lh5.google.com/waimok0105/R93QCyecHaI/AAAAAAAADLw/uw9h7jPs_eU/s800/IMG_1539.JPG

http://lh4.google.com/waimok0105/R93QSiecHjI/AAAAAAAADM4/wR_3AGJDVug/s800/IMG_1555.JPG

http://lh4.google.com/waimok0105/R93QjiecHsI/AAAAAAAADOE/YkLXSWUX6Yc/s800/IMG_1592.JPG

[RPCrowe]

I use this lens 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS version which I owned prior. I use this lens more often because it's great IS allows me to hand hold the camera/lens at slower shutter speeds.

I can hand hold this lens fully extended at 1/60 second with a certainty that my shots will be sharp. At 1/30 second, my keeper rate goes down but is still respectable. if I am forced to shoot at 1/30 second which happens very seldom, I tend to shoot in burst mode and the second shot will often be a tad sharper that shot #1 bceause the motion from my finger on the shutter will have been dampened.

An equal exposure to using 1/60 second at f/4 would be 1/120 second on an f/2.8 lens. I cannot hold a 200mm lens steady at 1/120 second. An equivalent exposure to 1/30 second at f/4 would be 1/60 second at f/2.8. There is no way in the world that I could ever consider shooting at 1/60 second at 200mm without IS help.

Obviously, the IS model of the f/2.8 lens will allow the slower shutter speeds. However either of the f/2.8 lenses are considerably heavier and more bulky than the f/4L series. I consider the f/4L a great general purpose lens that is also great for travel.

[junzo13]

I find this lens useful for weddings. Some cropping and autolevels applied.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh150/junzo13/IMG_7990_8x12al.jpg

[thrash_273]

oh yes attach the photos.... hmmm whoops!
the choppers are crazy!=) try tight crop and some color bal tweaking.

[MikRad]

Thanks, looking now its not the clearest image or finest piece of photography but the subjects are pretty awesome, they were doing an acrobatic demonstration at the F1...

[llenuts]

Just one from the weekend, f/8, 169mm.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2339596453_d758cab04c_o.jpg

[whakojacko]

had these oldies for almost 8 months now(:eek::eek:). They were shot on raw, but pushed straight through to JPEG in landscape setting on DPP (no other PP). I really should PP these, but I can never figure out how I want to do it, and thus always stop.
Taken 6/27/07 6AM Capitola, CA
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/whakojacko/IMG_5927.jpg
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/whakojacko/IMG_5924.jpg
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/whakojacko/IMG_5913.jpg

[Seamless]

I find this lens useful for weddings. Some cropping and autolevels applied.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh150/junzo13/IMG_7990_8x12al.jpg

That's a very satisfying shot: color, composition, focus. Great venue, too.

[MikRad]

Eastern Freeway, Melbourne, Australia

F4.0 10" ISO 100

Any tips welcomed!

[Jman13]

I haven't had this lens for very long, but boy is it a great lens. I've only had a chance to really shoot with it once, and that was for my wife's high school musical (she's a teacher, so don't be thinking weird thoughts).

All of these are at f/4, ISO 1600:

http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/asu-1.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/asu-2.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/asu-3.jpg

[mzivtins]

Those Chairs have awesome colour, great photo.

Here are 4 from the F1 in Melbourne on Saturday......my goodness it was HOT!!


oh my GOD!!!

theat f15 looks AAAMMMAAAZZINGG!! you could sell the picture to an aircraft encyclopedia publisher!!!!!! that is HOT photograpahy!

[MikRad]

Thanks HEAPS!!
Yeah those F18's were awesome, this one was heading straight ahead then ripped into a stall (in other words, he wasnt just doing a curve, he ripped it backwards like 90degrees in one second!) and all the vortices or vapourisation came off the wings and nose....very nice.
Not to mention the noise......BOOOOOOM!

Great lens though, i cropped that photo as 100% and you can see its still sharp as, that image stabilizer worked a treat, with the jet going 1000kmhr theres no way i could have held it stable!

[mzivtins]

Thanks HEAPS!!
Yeah those F18's were awesome, this one was heading straight ahead then ripped into a stall (in other words, he wasnt just doing a curve, he ripped it backwards like 90degrees in one second!) and all the vortices or vapourisation came off the wings and nose....very nice.
Not to mention the noise......BOOOOOOM!

Great lens though, i cropped that photo as 100% and you can see its still sharp as, that image stabilizer worked a treat, with the jet going 1000kmhr theres no way i could have held it stable!

haha i cant believe i called it a f15 oh my lol! :o eagle mixed up with a tomcat eh hahaha

[MikRad]

I took a few shots of those jets and that one stood out awesome! ill have a look thru the others and put more up, they were great.... i love the F1 cars but you cant beat fighter jets for noise, and fear factor!
Wouldnt want to be on the wrong end of that thing in a war! ;)

[MikRad]

This one ripped nicely.....with some good exhaust glow when he hit the gas!

[jenufa]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2091/2235899113_2063949d93.jpg

Great Blue Heron. Maldives Jan 2008 Great Lens

[MikRad]

Is the Heron without any editing?
Looks great, wish i was there where the water was that blue!

This is the moon tonight in Melbourne...
F4.0 1/2000 (it was very bright) ISO 400

[whakojacko]

More love for my favorite lens. Straight Jpeg from my 400d
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/whakojacko/IMG_6798.jpg

[Hogster86]

From a walk in the woods today!

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94891546/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94894306/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94894307/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94893662/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94894428/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94894643/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94894624/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/94894601/original.jpg


David

[jacobsen1]

OK, so how many of you have found this lens restrictive with the f4 aspect?

I owned a 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS). I used to think that I needed if for "action" so I bought the f/2.8 thinking I'd always have the shutter speeds cranked. Well in reality yes I needed that some of the time. But typically when I was shooting sports, f/4 wouldn't kill me and I realized (after getting a 300mm f4 IS) how useful IS could make this lens since I couldn't easily use it inside because of the need for 1/250th to keep it stable...

So I sold that lens and have been on a prime kick lately, but I also like having a 2 zoom travel setup... Right now I have the 16-35 and 24-70, but there is a bit of overlap there and I feel selling the 24-70 for a 70-200 would work better for me. IS would be awesome for those times when a tripod won't or can't work and the f4 IS is sooo much lighter than the f/2.8 IS. So basically I'm getting an IS version and this version fits the budget, how restrictive is the f4 aspect of this lens? Getting a f/2.8 version would take a while $ wise plus it's so much bigger/heavier when traveling I'd love the smaller version if it works...

[Roy Mathers]

I have the f/4 IS and have never found it restricting - and it's so much lighter and easier to carry around!

[jacobsen1]

I have the f/4 IS and have never found it restricting - and it's so much lighter and easier to carry around!

I hear that. I recently sold my 17-40 for the 16-35 and noticed the difference and it's not much. I did that for the stop (since there is no IS) and because it's wider, but it was a very hard descision because the 17-40 was so good and a very nice size/weight. I especially hate the 16-35's hood though....

The f/2.8 70-200 weights almost 1.5 POUNDS more...

[Hogster86]

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/95129585/original.jpg


David :D

[JoYork]

Wow, beautiful photo, David! :)

[Roy Mathers]

How I wish I could get a shot of one of our garden tits like that. Well done, David!

[Spaced_K]

OK, so how many of you have found this lens restrictive with the f4 aspect?

I owned a 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS). I used to think that I needed if for "action" so I bought the f/2.8 thinking I'd always have the shutter speeds cranked. Well in reality yes I needed that some of the time. But typically when I was shooting sports, f/4 wouldn't kill me and I realized (after getting a 300mm f4 IS) how useful IS could make this lens since I couldn't easily use it inside because of the need for 1/250th to keep it stable...

So I sold that lens and have been on a prime kick lately, but I also like having a 2 zoom travel setup... Right now I have the 16-35 and 24-70, but there is a bit of overlap there and I feel selling the 24-70 for a 70-200 would work better for me. IS would be awesome for those times when a tripod won't or can't work and the f4 IS is sooo much lighter than the f/2.8 IS. So basically I'm getting an IS version and this version fits the budget, how restrictive is the f4 aspect of this lens? Getting a f/2.8 version would take a while $ wise plus it's so much bigger/heavier when traveling I'd love the smaller version if it works...

Its a trade off really.
If you can stomach the size and weight and dont mind paying the extra then get the 2.8 IS. I think IS is more of a benefit than the extra stop to take it up to 2.8. So in my mind it was a toss up between the f/2.8IS and the f/4IS and the money side of it was the main factor.

I dont find the f/4 restricting at all, but it is always nice to have some spare room if needed.

[El Duderino]

How I wish I could get a shot of one of our garden tits like that. Well done, David!

I want a garden with tits.

[sleepo]

https://www.uptime.org.uk/tmp/dog.jpg

Lens seems good so far but haven't had much chance to use it ... roll on weekend :>

[Jman13]

Jacobsen - I traded my 80-200 f/2.8L for the f/4L IS, and I'm very pleased with the trade. The f/4 IS is so much more hand holdable due to the 4 stop IS, and the weight savings is fantastic...makes a two lens travel kit both very versatile and light. I shot a stage show, and the f/4 was just fine. If you shoot a lot of night or indoor sports, the f/2.8 will be better, but other than that, I'd go for the f/4 IS. It's just perfect in handling and IQ.

[snowrdr]

Here's a shot with the 1.4x extender on :D

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/94753750.jpg

[Hogster86]

How I wish I could get a shot of one of our garden tits like that. Well done, David!
Wow, beautiful photo, David! :)
Thanks very much! :D :D That was taken out of a bedroom window with the curtain mostly closed so they couldn't see me moving :) He was probably only there for a second or two!!


David :)

[MinhThien]

I am a newbie! any tips would help!:)

[Jman13]

A few shots from this past Saturday...the last two with the Kenko 1.4x:

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/goose_duck.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/twilight_trees.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/geese_sunrise.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/pickponds_sunrise.jpg

[Jezmo]

Just got my new 70-200mm f4 IS this weekend and LOVE it. Super sharp, quick focussing and all the other good things you all know already. Here's a little fella I spotted on my first walkabout with it - an urban squirrel. Hard nut :lol:

[Roy Mathers]

Just got my new 70-200mm f4 IS this weekend and LOVE it. Super sharp, quick focussing and all the other good things you all know already. Here's a little fella I spotted on my first walkabout with it - an urban squirrel. Hard nut :lol:


It might be super sharp with quick focussing, but the colours are not too good are they!:D

[Jezmo]

Haha. Urban squirrel - Urban chic! I'll have to dig out the unprocessed picture with a 100% crop. It's unbelievably sharp.

[jacobsen1]

B&H is killing me... It takes them a while to process returns so my 2.8 version went back Monday. Was process by wednesday then the order for this went in Thursday at 2pm. I was hoping that meant it would ship Thursday night, but it went out Friday at 7am... I've never seen that before, but long story short, it'll be at work on Monday, leaving me home w/o it over the weekend....:cry:

[staceyann]

David :D

Very nice!

[junzo13]

http://images.junzo13.multiply.com/image/3/photos/22/orig/2/IMG_8615_12x8.jpg?et=R57xiKRo1i5IlsVEJbTfpQ&nmid=89886126

http://images.junzo13.multiply.com/image/3/photos/22/orig/2/IMG_8615_12x8.jpg

[Hogster86]

Wow lovely shot junzo! :cool:

Here's one of mine from today:

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/95548121/original.jpg


David :) :)

[Hogster86]

Another one :)

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/95554240/original.jpg


David :D

[staceyann]

B&H is killing me... It takes them a while to process returns so my 2.8 version went back Monday. Was process by wednesday then the order for this went in Thursday at 2pm. I was hoping that meant it would ship Thursday night, but it went out Friday at 7am... I've never seen that before, but long story short, it'll be at work on Monday, leaving me home w/o it over the weekend....:cry:

Out of curiousity, why did you exchange your 2.8 version for this lens?

[Dave M]

I'll play as well. I love this lens as well and have had great success with it. Here are two samples of my own. The first is from Sea World's dolphin show taken last week and the second of my son is from our vacation to Maui last summer.

[jacobsen1]

Out of curiousity, why did you exchange your 2.8 version for this lens?

a few reasons actually. First is that the 2.8 version is gigantic. I try to keep my kit compact and light, and the 2.8 version it very big. Also, since both can get a shot in the same light just with a slower shutter at f4 with this version I'm not losing anything. Lots of people like to say the f/2.8 is needed for sports, but I don't necessarily agree. The sports I shoot are outside. But I also have some primes in this range. If I do need the speed, I don't need the IS, so I can substitute a prime and have 4x the shutter speed... Doubling the shutter speed would help, but from playing with a 2.8 IS around the house it's not enough, using the 85mm or 135L would be a better choice. Also this lens is sharper than the 2.8 version. Not that it's bad, but I love primes for their IQ, so the better IQ I can get from a zoom the more I'll use it. Finally price comes into play. I try not to factor that in when I can avoid it because I don't want to feel the need to upgrade down the line... But getting ~$700 back for it helps. Also I have a 300 F4 IS, so I already have the colar, and I know how well that lens works at f4... Also because of that lens, I won't be using TCs on this lens (it takes them better than the 2.8 IQ wise, but not light/AF wise).

So yeah, lots of reasons, but mostly with my primes, this makes more sense. It's funny, I'm also considering selling my 16-35 II and going back to the 17-40... Something about that lens.... and I don't like the expense nor weight of the 2.8s for what you get optically. I haven't decided there yet.

[Savas K]

Existing lens collections do play a part in the decision. If the photographer doesn't use primes, you can have two zooms and cover a lot, then choose if you want the two zooms lightweight or heavier. If heavier, the zooms will still weigh less than the equivalent focal length range in primes.

[aarbiser]

i just brought this lens at the weekend and WOW. Is my first L lens and what a difference. I was torn between the sigma 70-200 2.8 EX macro and this. Was glad i went for the IS on the canon and the lighter frame. Is the best purchase i have made.
Now i just have to figure out how to take good photos.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/assafarbiser/

would love some comments. Thanks

[jupera]

Some examples:
http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Flower+Power/Conifer+trees/m%E4nty_1787y_cpp-n_170208.JPG
and
http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Sense+of+spring/spring-08/lau_joutsen_2870y_pcpp-n-sf_280308.jpg
and
http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/In+Helsinki/Seaside/lau_harmaja_0145y_pcpp-s_011207.jpg

[Borderfox]

a few reasons actually. First is that the 2.8 version is gigantic. I try to keep my kit compact and light, and the 2.8 version it very big. Also, since both can get a shot in the same light just with a slower shutter at f4 with this version I'm not losing anything. Lots of people like to say the f/2.8 is needed for sports, but I don't necessarily agree. The sports I shoot are outside. But I also have some primes in this range. If I do need the speed, I don't need the IS, so I can substitute a prime and have 4x the shutter speed... Doubling the shutter speed would help, but from playing with a 2.8 IS around the house it's not enough, using the 85mm or 135L would be a better choice. Also this lens is sharper than the 2.8 version. Not that it's bad, but I love primes for their IQ, so the better IQ I can get from a zoom the more I'll use it. Finally price comes into play. I try not to factor that in when I can avoid it because I don't want to feel the need to upgrade down the line... But getting ~$700 back for it helps. Also I have a 300 F4 IS, so I already have the colar, and I know how well that lens works at f4... Also because of that lens, I won't be using TCs on this lens (it takes them better than the 2.8 IQ wise, but not light/AF wise).

So yeah, lots of reasons, but mostly with my primes, this makes more sense. It's funny, I'm also considering selling my 16-35 II and going back to the 17-40... Something about that lens.... and I don't like the expense nor weight of the 2.8s for what you get optically. I haven't decided there yet.

The f2.8 makes a lot of difference in outdoor sports, even if its an overcast day you lose lots of shutter speed in an f4, it can mean the difference between shooting @ ISO 400 and ISO 800+. The f2.8 is such a good allrounder too, its big and white but so is the f4IS (not so chunky but still substantial)

[jacobsen1]

^ OK, I owned the f2.8 IS and decided to return it... Let me make that clear. There is a substantial difference in the size and weight to me. And I know all about the 1 stop difference, either in ISO or shutter speed. I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing if that really makes THAT BIG a difference, then go THE NEXT STEP to some f/2.0 or faster glass so it's 2 stops...

IE, I already own and love the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0. Those are all AT LEAST one stop faster than the f/2.8 and 2 faster than the f4. Plus if I'm worried about the shutter speed that much obviously I'm shooting at high enough speeds that IS isn't working.

To me, when I need the speed the difference between f2.8 and f4 isn't enough, it's only one stop. I'd rather have 2 stops with the f2 or faster primes when I really need the speed, then the smaller lighter package with the f4 version when I'm traveling or when f4 is fast enough. So far for me f4 has been more than fast enough for my outside sports.

Plus the 135L AND 70-200 f4 weight less combined than the 70-200 2.8 if I want to take both. Adding either the 50 or 85 to the bag put it slightly over the 70-200s weight. Yes it's more space in the bag, but that's only if I'm going somewhere where I'm worried about the f4, but not convinced it won't work. For me I'll usually be out with the 70-200 f4 and the 300 f4 and not worry about it. If I know it's going to be a slow day weight wise then I'll take all primes and leave the 70-200 at home.

[jasonleehl]

^ OK, I owned the f2.8 IS and decided to return it... Let me make that clear. There is a substantial difference in the size and weight to me. And I know all about the 1 stop difference, either in ISO or shutter speed. I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing if that really makes THAT BIG a difference, then go THE NEXT STEP to some f/2.0 or faster glass so it's 2 stops...

IE, I already own and love the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0. Those are all AT LEAST one stop faster than the f/2.8 and 2 faster than the f4. Plus if I'm worried about the shutter speed that much obviously I'm shooting at high enough speeds that IS isn't working.

To me, when I need the speed the difference between f2.8 and f4 isn't enough, it's only one stop. I'd rather have 2 stops with the f2 or faster primes when I really need the speed, then the smaller lighter package with the f4 version when I'm traveling or when f4 is fast enough. So far for me f4 has been more than fast enough for my outside sports.

Plus the 135L AND 70-200 f4 weight less combined than the 70-200 2.8 if I want to take both. Adding either the 50 or 85 to the bag put it slightly over the 70-200s weight. Yes it's more space in the bag, but that's only if I'm going somewhere where I'm worried about the f4, but not convinced it won't work. For me I'll usually be out with the 70-200 f4 and the 300 f4 and not worry about it. If I know it's going to be a slow day weight wise then I'll take all primes and leave the 70-200 at home.

I tried both the 2.8 and 4 L IS before buying. What I can say is that both are fantastic. At the end I bought the 4L IS because of the size and that I didn't need one for 2.8. I knew I would missed the 2.8 for potraits at times, but I got the 100 Macro 2.8 and it serves me well.

At the end of the day, I would probably say it depends on your needs. If u're a wedding photographer, you'll be likely to take the 2.8 rather than the 4. Same goes for sports shooters.

[egordon99]

I went with the f/4 IS version as well. f/2.8 is still too slow for low light no-flash shots so I bring out my 85mm f/1.8 in those situations. Hope to add a 135mm f/2L one day as well. I don't shoot sports and indoors I tend to use flash, so the f/4 is fine for my purposes.

[mom22]

I went with the f/4 IS version as well. f/2.8 is still too slow for low light no-flash shots so I bring out my 85mm f/1.8 in those situations. Hope to add a 135mm f/2L one day as well. I don't shoot sports and indoors I tend to use flash, so the f/4 is fine for my purposes.


Same for me here. My first lens purchase was the f4 IS and the f4 should be enough for the outside sports I shoot with my kids. I ordered the 85mm 1.8 for the inside sports, orchestra performances and general portraits. For now I think I have covered my needs speed-wise. If I could stop lurking on the forums and finding out that "I need more".;)

[gardengirl13]

A few shots from this past Saturday...the last two with the Kenko 1.4x:





http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/geese_sunrise.jpg




I love this shot! I can just hear the honking!

[Fabrian]

http://thefabhouse.com/temp_sample_images/potn/IMG_4420.jpg

http://thefabhouse.com/temp_sample_images/potn/IMG_4450.jpg

[Pentaxis]

Fabian: That first shot is money! Definitely gives you the sense of being there with the birds, mist, and the bare feet in the wet sand!

[Hogster86]

Super shot Fabian! :D

This was the sunset this evening :)

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/95729186/original.jpg


And here's an abstract shot looking through a venetian blind, and then through some frosted glass at the Sun :)

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/95729282/original.jpg


David :D

[wallybud]

Some sweet shots in this thread, just thought id throw one in there, this is from yesterdays sunny 63 morning =) I posted this in the animal photo section but I think it really shows the excellent IQ and tack sharp(edness) ;) that we all hope to have arrive in a nice brown box from the UPS man :lol::lol::lol:

[Fabrian]

Fabian: That first shot is money! Definitely gives you the sense of being there with the birds, mist, and the bare feet in the wet sand!

Super shot Fabian! :D

Thanks fellas :D

I don't get to use this lens enough outside of softball/football season, so I brought it along for some Florida east coast sunrise fun ;)

Nice Pana BTW!

[mesabassman]

i just brought this lens at the weekend and WOW. Is my first L lens and what a difference. I was torn between the sigma 70-200 2.8 EX macro and this. Was glad i went for the IS on the canon and the lighter frame. Is the best purchase i have made.
Now i just have to figure out how to take good photos.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/assafarbiser/

would love some comments. Thanks

I'm in the same boat as you! I just received mine today and it is sitting in it's box while I am at work :( I can't wait to get home and mount it on my camera. I too thought about getting the sigma because of the larger aperture but decided on this one! After seeing so many unbelievable pictures with this lens I am glad I went this route.... !Now I just have to figure out how to take good photos!" :)

[Hogster86]

http://www.pbase.com/image/95753052/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/95753051/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/95753124/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/95753125/original.jpg

Cheers :D


David

PS. I love this lens!! :D

[cherrymoon]

@Fabrian : please tell me that your shots are post-processed ?!

[Fabrian]

@Fabrian : please tell me that your shots are post-processed ?!

Don't panic, I did do some PP :lol:

I used to be against posting PP'd images, but since so many do...I finally gave in. IIRC, there was a touch of noiseware,levels and highpass @ 2 then opacity set to 50%, so really very little sharpening.

[jacobsen1]

Some cherry (?) tree shots from last night:
http://gear.benjacobsenphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/70-200-f4-is-l/img_0074.jpg

http://gear.benjacobsenphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/70-200-f4-is-l/img_0076.jpg

http://gear.benjacobsenphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/70-200-f4-is-l/img_0077.jpg

http://gear.benjacobsenphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/70-200-f4-is-l/img_0078.jpg

http://gear.benjacobsenphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/70-200-f4-is-l/img_0080.jpg

http://gear.benjacobsenphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/70-200-f4-is-l/img_0081.jpg

[staceyann]

Some cherry (?) tree shots from last night:



Yes, it's a cherry blossom tree. Nice shots! I see you already got your f/4 IS! Aren't you happy with it? I am still waiting for mine.

[jacobsen1]

yeah, I live 1 ups day from B&H... :)
and yes, I LOVE IT!!!

[JeffreyVB]

Got this lens last week. Here is one of the first pics I took.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/onenictoy/4Runner/IMG_8310_1024.jpg

1/400, ISO 100, f4, 200mm

[mesabassman]

Here is an image I took over the weekend indoors. I love this lens!

[Hogster86]

Cool sunset this evening :cool:

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/95993318/original.jpg

Cheers!


David :)

[silverwolf]

Quit David your going to make me break my wallet:rolleyes:Its all good cheers Sean. L

[jasonleehl]

I really love my 70-200 f4 IS! Sometimes, I'm amazed with the IQ when I do pixel peeping. Something to share with everyone. It's just a croc from the zoo.

[JoYork]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2435110144_6bc11a68d3_o.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS 350D Digital
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 100

[Jman13]

Two from yesterday - a raccoon ran up a tree outside my office. I was there to capture it!
Both at 200mm. I think I was at f/4 on the first. f/8 on the second with a burst of flash from the onboard just to get a small catchlight in his eyes.

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/raccoon1.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/raccoon2.jpg

[JoYork]

Awww that's fab, Jordan :)

[Rubberhead]

My most recents:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2387/2428262690_f4f3b3f5db_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2386459036_ffd9f9fc96_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2222/2385742555_89d8d35788_b.jpg