My 70-200 f4 L has arrived...

[pigasus]

...and I'm not sure I'm happy with it. :(

It's not that there's anything wrong with the lens. It's absolutely perfect as far as I can see. But it just doesn't feel right in my hands. I'm also very conscious of the fact that it doesn't have IS. I never realised how effective the IS on my 28-135 was at steadying the image. Of course I haven't had much of a chance to play with it yet. Tomorrow I'll really give it a workout and see if I can come to terms with it.

The thing is, my 28-135 always felt right to me, from the first photo I took with it. (Guess who's not selling her 28-135 in a hurry now.) But since well over 90% of the photos I take are at 70mm and higher, I assumed that the 70-200 would be the lens that lived on my camera.

And that's the other problem. I carry my camera with its lens in a holster bag on my waist. On my belt I also plan to carry a second lens in it's own case. As I walk about, I take the camera out of the bag, take a few photos, put the camera back in the bag, walk on, etc. If the 70-200 is the lens which lives on the camera (and that was the whole point of it), then it's never gonna fit in the holster bag I've got with it's hood on (even reversed). Ok I know I can get a bigger holster bag. But I am already in danger of disappearing behind my camera bags - and there's a limit to how much stuff will fit on a 26" waist!

So I am a disappointed bunny right now. Hopefully, I will learn to love it and will be so blown away by the quality of the images, that I will cope with the inconvenience of carrying it.

But if the photos I can take with it aren't a lot better than what I'm getting from my 28-135 (after PS adjustment), then I think I'll sell it on. Maybe I'll wind up using my 28-135 as my main on camera lens and waiting until Canon produces a 200 f2.8 IS, which I can use on those special occassions (like Rudi wants to use his 300 :)).

In the meantime, I'm not mentioning a word of my doubts in the house - for fear of being clobbered.

Sally

[UK_Terry]

26" waist WOW

i am in a similar situation have just aquired 28-135 IS & 100-400 L IS.

the 100-400 has its own case but is still big,
the D30 with the 28-135 attached will not fit in my bag.
cannot get a new one as i have only had this one a couple of months.

still i hope i will get used to it as the expenditure which was ok with me , didn't go down as well in the house.

HMMM ungrateful lot, i do take their pictures (even if they don't want them....LOL...) and nobody takes mine.

[soumya63]

Apart from a bigger holster bag dangling, you would also have to carry a mono / tripod :D As a fringe benefit, it will help you to maintain 26” with less workout at gym.

No kidding, hiking on steep mountain trail with my 300mm fitted on D30 and hanging from my neck made my back ache. Hanging from waist is a much better idea, but I doubt the bag will prevent it from swinging and banging against your legs! Try backpacks.

[Karl]

I have a 70-200mm IS f/2.8L and it's better than the 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS non-L I was using before it, but it still suffers from softness at the far end of its focal length, which is aggravated even more at small apertures (f/16 and smaller).

Color and contrast are much nicer on the L however.

Regardless, it's not $1300 more lens than the 70-300 IS 4-5.6 :)

My favorite still remains my 28-70L.

[Rudi]

pigasus wrote:
...and I'm not sure I'm happy with it. :(

Sally, let's look at this sensibly! :D


pigasus wrote:It's not that there's anything wrong with the lens. It's absolutely perfect as far as I can see. But it just doesn't feel right in my hands.

I actualy like the way the 70-200 f/4 handles in my hands, it's one of the things that prevented me from buying the f/2.8 version...


pigasus wrote:I'm also very conscious of the fact that it doesn't have IS. I never realised how effective the IS on my 28-135 was at steadying the image.

Aaaah, that is one of the things that I noticed straight away, too. It's funny how quickly you get used to IS, and (speaking for myself here) how sloppy your handholding becomes. I found myself not handholding my camera properly, trusting the IS to do the hard work for me. Easily fixed, though, just keep the shutter speed higher, and/or use a tripod/monopod. IS does make life a hell of a lot easier, though, so I know where you're coming from. I think that would be my perfect lens, the 70-200 f/4L IS... :)


pigasus wrote: Of course I haven't had much of a chance to play with it yet. Tomorrow I'll really give it a workout and see if I can come to terms with it.

Yeah, give it a chance, because it is a great lens. You will not be disappointed with the images taken with this lens.


pigasus wrote:If the 70-200 is the lens which lives on the camera (and that was the whole point of it), then it's never gonna fit in the holster bag I've got with it's hood on (even reversed).

Simple. Leave the hood at home! Is it just me or do other people find that shooting without a hood is no big deal most of the time?


pigasus wrote:But I am already in danger of disappearing behind my camera bags - and there's a limit to how much stuff will fit on a 26" waist!

26 inch waist! :D


pigasus wrote:So I am a disappointed bunny right now. Hopefully, I will learn to love it and will be so blown away by the quality of the images, that I will cope with the inconvenience of carrying it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Sally, but please, do give it a chance! What you have there is a great "regular", non IS lens, and you just have to use it accordingly. That said, I do know where you're coming from, and an IS version of this lens would sell like hotcakes, IMO. That is one of the reasons why I am getting the 300 f/4L IS, because at the longer focal length, I just don't want to live without it. 200mm should be holdable easily enough, though

Unfortunately you are between a rock and a hard place. You can't use the heavier IS lenses, and Canon don't make the f/4L with IS. Only you can decide whether you can live with this lens. Go and shoot some pictures, I'm sure it's going to grow on you... :)

[pigasus]

Well, I thought I'd give you an update. I borrowed a friends d30 body so I could get some comparison shots with the 28-135 and 70-200 without having to keep changing lenses. The 70-200 is clearly a superior lens. Which isn't much of a surprise. But I found that I could compensate a great deal for the difference in PS. Not completely, of course, but a lot. The 28-135 is a better lens than I gave it credit for.

I also found that as long as I kept the shutter speed over 1/90 I didn't have any problems with camera shake.

But I'm still not happy. And I'm not completely sure why not. Over the next couple of day I'll play some more and try to arrive at some conclusions. Right now I'm thinking it might be most sensible to use my 28-135 as my general on camera and travel lens and use the 70-200 for those bird watching and zoo visiting moments. But if anyone out there (in the UK) wants to buy a new 70-200 f4 L (complete with 2 year warranty) for £500, email me. I might just sell it.

Oh yeah, on the waist front. I lied. Well actually, it used to be 26 inches but I haven't measured it in years. So I just checked it - it's 27 inches. Still, not too bad for someone pushing 60! :D

Sally

[Rudi]

pigasus wrote:
Oh yeah, on the waist front. I lied. Well actually, it used to be 26 inches but I haven't measured it in years. So I just checked it - it's 27 inches. Still, not too bad for someone pushing 60! :D

Sally

:O Oh my god! You've stacked it on! :D

I'm sorry the lens isn't working out for you, Sally. I wonder if the 200mm f/2.8L prime might be a better choice in your situation... about the same price, and definitely a lens classified as interesting in my little brain... :)

I got my EF Extender 1.4x II yesterday (why don't they just call it a Teleconverter, like everybody else?), and plan to put it through its paces today. I'll let you know how it goes.

[pigasus]

Rudi wrote:
I wonder if the 200mm f/2.8L prime might be a better choice in your situation... about the same price, and definitely a lens classified as interesting in my little brain... :)
I thought about that lens today. But then I realised I'd be better off sticking with the 70-200. It actually weighs less than the 200 2.8L and it gives me the benefits of a zoom. (My foot zoom is a bit creaky.) The 200 is faster, but I don't need a faster lens. About the only benefit of the 200 from my particular point of view is that it's shorter in length. So I'm just gonna keep on playing with the new lens and see what develops. :D

Sally

[Rudi]

So many lenses... so little time! :)

[lazoj]

"Of course I haven't had much of a chance to play with it yet. Tomorrow I'll really give it a workout and see if I can come to terms with it."

When I hold it with and without TC, I hold the camera with my right hand (duh...) I keep the heal of my left hand on the bottom of my vertical grip and wrap my fingers around the zoom ring. Select zoom, then then bring my pinky back and rest it against the body. Hope this makes sense.

"The thing is, my 28-135 always felt right to me, from the first photo I took with it. (Guess who's not selling her 28-135 in a hurry now.) But since well over 90% of the photos I take are at 70mm and higher, I assumed that the 70-200 would be the lens that lived on my camera."

It is a larger lens, also a sharper zoom capable of shooting wide open with sharp results, try that on the long end of your 28-135! The size of the glass/lens is directly related to quality of your images. All that can be said...got to live with it, I guess. Just be glad it is not the 70-200L IS f2.8!

"As I walk about, I take the camera out of the bag, take a few photos, put the camera back in the bag, walk on, etc. If the 70-200 is the lens which lives on the camera (and that was the whole point of it). "

I carry this lens mounted too, just don't plan on putting it in the bag or changing lenses. This is when accidents happen. If you need to buy a small bag for the 70-200L when it is not in use. You can also use the holster bag to hold your lens when it is not in use.

"So I am a disappointed bunny right now. Hopefully, I will learn to love it and will be so blown away by the quality of the images, that I will cope with the inconvenience of carrying it."

You will trust me! It is a great lens. I love it!



Jeffrey Lazo
-Check out my D60 Galleries-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj
Lens Information/Prices
http://homepage.mac.com/lazod/lenses.html

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Rudi wrote:
So many lenses... so little time! :)

... and so little money. :(

[mrbobco]

so many lenses and so little money indeed :)

from my experience...i have a 200/2.8L and for the first couple of days i was pretty unhappy with the shots (camera shake, etc) BUT the quality and beauty of the images (once i got sensible and started using a tripod and faster shutter) are STUNNING...it's one of three primes i own and it hooked me on them but good! (link to 200/2.8L pic (http://www.pbase.com/mrbobco/200_28l) it's not a great shot but shows you just how crisp this lens can be in the hands of an amateur)

i've eyed that 70-200 (all 3 "L" versions) and just can't justify the expense at the moment...

but as with all lenses (especially when you've already gotten used to a lens) give it some time...you'll be surprised what you can do!

good luck and happy shooting :)

bob

[Roger_Cavanagh]

mrbobco wrote:
... and for the first couple of days i was pretty unhappy with the shots (camera shake, etc) BUT the quality and beauty of the images (once i got sensible and started using a tripod and faster shutter) are STUNNING...

Bob,

Very sensible advice... after a long and convoluted thread about depth of field and circles of confusion on Fred Miranda's site, I convinced myself that the rule of thumb for minimum shutter speed - 1/focal length - needed to be adjusted for the D30's 1.6 "multiplier factor". A couple of month's back I started to use the more conservative:

1(FL*1.6)

Putting aside issues of IS, I getting MUCH fewer "wobbly" images.

Cheers,

[UK_Terry]

Nice photo of cat, but HUGE, and quality excellent.
i am sure i can see a flea in the fur.

[mrbobco]

fleas?

never :) they're indoor cats =^ . . ^=

(i think it's that dander that my girlfriend is SO allergic to...i swear she sneezed when i showed her the picture)

anyways...way off topic here i know...but thanks for the compliment...

just wanted to illustrate how delicious those canon prime lenses can be...

and thanks for the info roger (although i've been doing the shutter speed math in my head more and more often lately...yes it really DOES work! :)

now if i can only find time to find something TRULY interesting to take a picture of!

bob