Canon EF 70-200 F4L - Review

[RichardtheSane]

OK, as some of you will know I recieved this lens yesterday after a small battle with UPS. While the lens is still fresh and new I decided to post my first impressions of it.

Why did I choose the lens
I had identified a need for a lens in that range. I have recently started doing some pet (mainly doag at the moment) photography and I was finding 28-75 a bit on the short side and 100-400 a bit on the long side. So from that you can see why I chose a 70-200 lens.
My next dilemma was which 70-200 lens.
This is where I though about usability, I would like a lens that is small enough and light enough to carry for extended periods, and that is comfortable with out without the battery grip. I take my 10D everywhere (almost) and I prefer to have a lenger lens with me.

Based on this I chose the EF 70-200 F4 L

First Impressions

Packaging was typical L quality, even the box felt like it was good quality! The lens was well packaged inside, so I was happy that despite a trip over the atlantic that all would be well. I let the lens warm up a little as it had been sat in a cold UPS van overnight, opportunity to have a flick through the booklet. Brief and too the point about sums it up, but that is good.

The lens is about the size and weight I expected. The weight of the lens feels about the same as the 10D body, and I would say half the weight of the 100-400L. And also being a significant amount smaller than the 100-400L it has already met two of my criteria for buying it.

On the 10D it feels good. I tried it without the grip first, and it didn't feel bad at all. The balance is fairly good, certainly much better than the 100-400L! Putting the grip on at it feels really at home. The balance is fantastic, I was able to carry the camera just with the hand strap for a while and when it came to shooting then I found the whole system to be very usable. This lens has just become my walkabout lens!

Performance is good too. For me AF speed was important, and I have found that it is about equal to my 100-400L which is great. The AF is quick and accurate, I am yet to fully test AI servo, todays experiment went wrong when our hound decided he didn't went to do his usual sprint circuit.

Sharpness and contrast are easily at the standard of my 100-400L, so very pleased there. Build quality is nice to. AF is silent, and the zoom and manual foocus are smooth.

One thing I have learned is IS makes for bad technique if you are not careful. I'm having to brush up on my technique to minimise camera shake, but for me that is a good thing!

So far, I can't believe such a good lens is such a good price, I do plan on adding more to this review as I use the lens more.

[samdring]

Sharpness and contrast are easily at the standard of my 100-400L, so very pleased there.

Good report - thanks Richard - the quoted point impressed me - am looking ever more seriously at this lens.

Did you make much saving over the average £500 it costs in UK?

[aam1234]

Received mine on Wed. and tried it on Thu. I agree to all you said.
The weight is nice, not too heavy not too light.

[RichardtheSane]

Mine cost me about £440 imported from the states including shipping and import duties. But I recieved it quicker from B and H then a number of UK suppliers could have done it!

[cmM]

congrats on your purchase.
I might own one of these 70-200 at some point, but right now I need the longer 100-400 and a new body, so I guess it'll be a while... it never ends.

[Belmondo]

I guess we're going to have to start calling you 'Richard Lindley'.

You're have correctly observed that a large part of the L experience is tactile. It has a lot to do with the feel, heft, finish, and overall quality you experience even before taking a single photograph. I never thought much about the quality of the boxes, but now that you mention it, I recall the resentment I felt when I had to cut holes in them to remove the UPC code for the rebates. :x :x

I'm enjoying your review, Richard. I look forward to more.

[kiwimichael]

Sharpness and contrast are easily at the standard of my 100-400L, so very pleased there.

Good report - thanks Richard - the quoted point impressed me - am looking ever more seriously at this lens.

This is observation is also verified on the Photodo website http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

I'm very happy with the quality of my 7-200L f4.

Cheers
Michael

[Sketcher]

Richard,

I enjoyed reading your review. The 70-200 f/4 was my first "L" and I regret having sold it. Such a light, sharp and solid lens. I completely agree that the balance of the f/4 & 10D w/grip is fantastic.

Looking forward to your continued review.

[roanjohn]

From somebody who had recently pruchased the 2.8 version, I just can't imagine letting go of my f4 version.

I LOVE IT SO MUCH!!! The weight and etc..........its the best.

CANON!!! Please come out with an IS version of this lens.

...........I am begging you!!!!

Ro1

[Mitch]

The 70-200L f4 is fantastic.

About 4 months ago I was all set to plunk down $1,750 at Samy's in Costa Mesa for a 70-200L 2.8 IS. I had deliberated on it for the prior 6 months. I walked into Samy's, walked up to the counter and said "I'd like to buy the 70-200L 2.8 IS, but first can I try it on my 10D?" They said sure. They handed my the lens and then... BA BOOM! I said to myself "My God, this this monstrocity weighs a ton!" I knew right then and there that the 2.8 IS was way, way, way too heavy. I tried it on the 10D and it confirmed my apprehensions. It was in fact too, too heavy. The darn thing is so heavy that it increases hand shake significantly.

I told the counter guy that I really had to rethink this whole thing. Just out of curiousity, I asked him to show me the 70-200L f4...at 1/3 the cost of the 2.8. He handed it to me and my immediate reaction upon his placing it in my hand was ...mmmmmmm, that's much, much better. I took a few shots with it and I knew immediately that that was the feel I liked and wanted. No question about it. It feels like part of the camera. It' so light and solid feeling that I liked the fit and feel and the fact that I could hold the camera with that lens so much steadier than the 2.8 IS. I bought the f4.

Three weeks ago I had a wedding shoot at a very dimly lit restaurant in Fullerton, CA. The place was illuminated with 60 watt bulbs and Christmas tree lights and no windows. The B&G wanted me take a shot of them in a loft. I had to shoot from the opposite side of the room from another loft, about 50 feet away from the B&G. I set the 70-200L f4 at 200mm f4, put the 10D on ISO 400, set the shutter speed at 1/90, propped my left elbow on a bannister rail and held the lens with my left hand, set the 550EX on ETTL and took five of the best shots of the entire evening. Didn't need the 2.8 f-stop, didn't need the IS. I am 57 years old and my hands aren't as steady as 25 year old, but, man, that is one great lens. You couldn't sell me the 2.8 IS for the same price I paid for the f4. Actually, I rented the IS version once, took it to the wedding and never pulled it out to use it, it just didn't feel light enough to use.

By the way, I was a gymnast for 9 years and weigh the same in college as I do now, I have always stayed in shape by lifting weights since I was 22 and I can still do four hand stand pushups unassisted, so strength and balance are not an issue.

[RichardtheSane]

[added to the bottom of the original review on suggestion of our esteemed and respected mod :) ]

I've now had the lens for two weeks and have used it enough in that time to add a bit more to my review of it. I'll break it down into sub sections that indicate how I have been using it and I will also compare it to my 100-400L in each section.

Portability
I chose the F4 version of this lens based on two things. Price, and Portability. I was looking for a tele-zoom that I could easily sling in a bag over my shoulder and take everywhere. Over the past two weeks I have done just that and not had any comfort problems. I stopped doing this with my 100-400 because it is a lot of extra weight, and also if the bag should bang against anything there is more momentum to cause damage. The 70-200 F4 is half the weight of the 100-400L and so it doesn't hit as hard. I mention this because I am being realistic, I am careful with my gear but accidents do happen and a heavly lens is more likely to get damaged than a light one even in the best padded bags out there!

Usability
First thing I have notices about the 70-200 F4 is the fact that is feels less conspicous when you take it from the bag that my 100-400L. Sure, it is still white and sticks out like a sore thumb but in more public places I was getting less attention using it.
Now I mentioned the lens is half the weight of my 100-400L, but is is not too light at 3/4 of a kilo. This is a good think because when handholding a 200mm lens a bit of extra weight help keep it steady. Another point here is what I call 'Grab Shots' - the weight reduction had meant that I have nailed a couple of shots one handed (dog on lead in the other hand...) that I would not have achieved with my 100-400L.

The Shots

OK, I've waffled a bit about the lens, but what people really want to know is how it handles on the camera, image wise. I don't the measurebator stuff, I like to see how a lens works by gettin gout there and shooting stuff. I've done a bit of wildlife shooting and also photographed a gig in poor light this week, so I am going to use an example or two from those now I am used to the lens.

The outdoor shot (Wildlife and more to follow).
Below is an image I took of a swan. It is not a very good composition, but technically it is about spot on.

http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/swancrop.jpg

The shot was a quick point, focus & shoot shot so I spent very little time setting it up. I had the focus on the full range from 1.2m to infinity and used AI Servo. Auto Focus is really quick on this lens, I am confident that if I have the subject on the active focus point then focus will be correct quicker than I can think about it. Here I focused on the eye with the point 2 above centre in portrait.

The 100% crop below shows the sharpness of the lens, I developed the raw to a jpeg in C1 and then cropped from the jpeg and resized for web.

http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/swancrop1.jpg

Here's where the lens shines. I nailed the focus quickly so I was happy it was spot on. Look how sharp and contrasty that is. I really don't think I need say more except that quality is consitant with every shot I have taken with the lens. (Would it help if I setu up & posted a link to a gallery with full images an 100% crops of each image?)

So I am blown away by the perforamnce of the lens for outdoor nature shots. In two weeks time I will be shooting a dog show with it, so I'll update the review then.

The indoor shots (Punk Gig)

On friday night this week I took the lens to a punk gig in a local boat club event hall. The lighting was horrendous, the layout was dreadful, but the music was great.

The lens was also great, and performed admirably.

My biggest problem with concerts is AF, so normally I shoot manual focus (unless using the 50mm F1.8) as I know it will be reliable every time. With the 70-200 F4L I was able to use AF at all times, and it only hunted once which was impressive. I did a few shots without flash, but there was even too little light to gt a decent shutter speed with the50mm F1.8 @ ISO 1600... so 550Ex here.

I can't say much more, but the AF nailed it every time even in poor light. The clarity of the images is superb, and I didn't come away with the arm ache a 70-200 2.8 would have given me!

http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/singer.jpg

http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/bassist.jpg

http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/drummer.jpg

So two weeks down the line and the lens has been used as the opposite ends of the spectum, and so far no weaknesses in either. I have been impressed with AF, sharpness and usability.

In fact the lens is a JOY to use. A perfect compromise between a lightweight lens and a quality L series zoom. My only gripe is the tripod ring costs a bloody fortune!

I know the review is not as long as some, so I hope it is all useful.

[elfyrulz]

wait!.. 70-200mm f/4 has an "IS"?? :shock:

[RichardtheSane]

wait!.. 70-200mm f/4 has an "IS"?? :shock:
No it doesn't :? :shock:

I think you have read what I said wrong.

I am used to IS, and now I am using a lens that doesn't have it I am having to brush up on my hand holding technique.

[Persian-Rice]

Congrats and great review. I have seen a couple head to heads of the 70-200 L' and the F4 seems to always come on top of the others when it comes to image quality............Other then when you are using the 2.8 IS full zoom handheld.

I guess you have now added that it handles better too, and at the price, I think this might be Canons best value high quality lens...................

Cheers.

[Savagelogic]

.......Other then when you are using the 2.8 IS full zoom handheld.

Are you saying that between the f/2.8 IS and the f/4, the 2.8 IS will handhold the best at 200mm? When I say "best" I mean getting the most usable sharp photos. I take it this is due to IS obviously?

I've only hand held the f/2.8 non-IS version very briefly, so my experience with it is very limited. What I'm really interested in is not how much the IS helps vs the f/2.8 non-IS version, but how much better is it vs the f/4 version which is much lighter. I really want to know which one will I get the best results out of shooting hand held at their respective max aperature. Any thoughts anyone?

[dn7elson]

I really want to know which one will I get the best results out of shooting hand held at their respective max aperature. Any thoughts anyone?

In low light conditions, the f2.8 IS will have 2 advantages, the ability to open to f2.8 will allow you to shoot faster in a given situation due to the more open lens, also, the IS will stabilize the lens in lower speed situations (relative to the amount of zoom) and give further benefit. Whether it is worth the difference in price is a judement call depending upon intended use.

[Persian-Rice]

If I find the article I will link you to it, but yes it has an effect because the image will probably come out sharper.

Lets say you take a picture at 1/30, 1/60 on both lenses handheld, you will get a much sharper images. Well thats why you pay the extra dough...........

Cheers.

[Mitch]

I recently discovered an issue using the 70-200L f4. I should have known this before. I was at a low light outdoor wedding reception in San Clemente, CA last Saturday and used my 70-200 f4 at 6:30 to 7:15pm hand held. I was using it for shoulder shots and head shots. My settings were 200mm, f4 at ISO=400, manual camera mode shooting from about 18 to 22 ft away from the subject using a 550EX on ETTL. Because of these settings, the Depth-of-Field was around 5 inches. Remember that most 10D and lens combinations seldom focus spot on, but rather either front focus a bit or back focus a bit. My rig front focuses about 3 to 5 inches from that distance with those settings. Bottom line is that the eyes focused oK but the rest of the image was soft.

One can't do anything about the front focusing of my camera and lens combination. The problem is with the low shutter speed and low f-stop. I really needed 1/200 with f8. Even if I set ISO at 800 (never go above 800 in low light, not worth it, way too much grain, can't print anything bigger than 4x6), I would be 2 stops too short and the image would be way under exposed.

What to do? Well, to get these kind of head and shoulder shots at that distance away from the subject, I would have to keep the shutter speed as low as possible by using a tripod (takes the unobtrusiveness and surreptitiousness out of it), or a monopod (but I'm not sure how much monopods help on reducing shutter speed in this situation), kick the ISO up to 800, or just not use the 70-200L f4 in such low light conditions. According to my calculations, the EV of the light environment was 8.5. To use 1/200, f8, ISO=400 represents an EV of 11.5 meaning, the light environment would have to be 3 stops lighter than it actually was.

Sure, I could have done it hand held with the IS version of the 70-200 (and that is the benefit of that lens, not a small thing). But, I don't wanna. I mean, I would rather forego something else, like getting closer to the subject with a smaller focal length in that lighting situation than use that IS monstrocity. It's just too heavy and bulky. I don't want to use it.
Mitch

[samdring]

Richard

Thanks again for your reviews - got mine this week and you're right - compares very well with 100-400.
Surprised you're going for tripod mount though - I have taken mine off 100-400, never used it and don't see the need - then again, Derbyshire brawn and bred :wink:

[forrest64]

When I can get this kind of detail

http://www.pbase.com/forrest64/image/33549808&exif=N

(note ribs in lamp and detail in apartment verticle posts) without sharpening and from an object slightly less than a 1/4 a mile away, I'd say I'm very happy with the 70-200 F4 lens.

Mark

[RichardtheSane]

Surprised you're going for tripod mount though - I have taken mine off 100-400, never used it and don't see the need - then again, Derbyshire brawn and bred :wink:

Normally I am a handholder (Lincolnshire brawn n bred) but I have found the need for a short monopod when using the 100-400 and shooting at dogs eye level for extended periods of time.

The 70-200 F4 doesn't need the mount, but it would be handy to have it :)

[JuStDaVe]

thanks for the great review i have one on order should have it within the next week and reading the review made me realise i made the right choice

dave

[rssfhs]

Santa is bringing me one in a few weeks! Can hardly wait!

[AdamJL]

Man this is one OLD thread!

[rssfhs]

Man this is one OLD thread!

The lens is the same, and the information just as relevant today as it was two years ago, so what's the problem?

[I Simonius]

Man this is one OLD thread!

Sos that lens now the IS is out!:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :lol:

[AdamJL]

The lens is the same, and the information just as relevant today as it was two years ago, so what's the problem?

No problem! I was just commenting, chill out matey! :)

[Lightstream]

This review seriously makes me want one.... bleah!

Tom's observation that the L experience is tactile is so true.... after living with nice big white L's, I find it so hard to pick up that 70-300 IS. Imaging quality is very very good (vs 'awesome' for its 100-400 competitor) but the build quality is awful.

[urbandancer]

This is my firts L lens and you are right. One you have one its a different history.
Great review-

[pos]

New guy to site. first i have to say this site is great, alot of what i read so far from everybody is very helpful and the report on cameras and lenses are good. I just got the 70-200 f/4l the other day and i got the rebel XTI also. i have had other digital cameras and so far this combo is the best i have so far. I haven't had to much time using the camera due to work, but what i did shoot so far i am impress with the sharpness and colors of the photos.can't wait to get out shoot some more.

[rssfhs]

No problem! I was just commenting, chill out matey! :)

Sorry, I thought you were chiding me for improper forum etiquette. At times it can be hard to know what people really mean without hearing their intonation.

[rssfhs]

In low light conditions, the f2.8 IS will have 2 advantages, the ability to open to f2.8 will allow you to shoot faster in a given situation due to the more open lens, also, the IS will stabilize the lens in lower speed situations (relative to the amount of zoom) and give further benefit. Whether it is worth the difference in price is a judement call depending upon intended use.

It will also have the disadvantage of being heavier and causing more camera shake, thus cancelling out to some degree its optical advantages.

[bildeb0rg]

hi, my reason for purchase was cost. the f4 will do until funds allow for the 2.8 version. 90% of what i shoot is full bore, chasing daylight at a rugby pitch, so i need al the help i can get. i.s.? yes please, if only to make up for my shivering. f2.8 too big? stick to basket weaving...yorkshire, born and bred.

[RTRIDER]

Man this is one OLD thread!

Yes, but it is still very helpful, even here in 2007. The comments and tips are helping newbies like me, try to decide which lens to go for.

And yes, it is my first time:oops: for an L So please be gentle.:) :)

[laimis.s]

Mine cost me about £440 imported from the states including shipping and import duties. But I recieved it quicker from B and H then a number of UK suppliers could have done it!

you could have got it for 405 pounds from Kerso (ebay) or shops like kea-photo from Hong Kong for 375 :) still though nice purchase :) and review is very accurate to my thoughts about the lens :)

[Medic85]

I guess my question is; do you really need IS for outdoor shots such as sporting events and things like that? I'm on the brink of buying this lens to mainly get shots of my dogs running and playing as well as one day my son doing the same. I could see the need for IS if you were shooting low light indoor stuff but if it's outdoors and wide open, do I need to spring for the IS version?

I know that everyone that's bought this lens has been extremely happy with it but I really don't want the added weight of IS or the f/2.8 version.

Thoughts?

[Ukuleleman]

Mine cost me about £440 imported from the states including shipping and import duties. But I recieved it quicker from B and H then a number of UK suppliers could have done it!
__________________
This is not an 'I got mine cheaper than yours shot', because I didn't, but I would rethink your ideas on british companies and their delivery times etc because £453.00 inc p&p, (£13.00 more than yours) ordered 5th Jan, received 8th Jan, (weekend in between) no worried about coming from America, or packaging etc, that's not bad, but it's what I have come to expect from Warehouse Express, they haven't failed me yet and I bought my 400d from them, all my lenses and my tripe'
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/2007_0203S90000055.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/2007_0203S90000058.jpg

[busterboy]

you could have got it for 405 pounds from Kerso (ebay) or shops like kea-photo from Hong Kong for 375 :) still though nice purchase :) and review is very accurate to my thoughts about the lens :)


I think you missed the date this post was originally made. 30th August 2004..:lol:

Our friend Ian Kerr (kerso is now doing this lens in the UK for £370 plus £10 shipping in the UK.;)

It just happens I bought a brand new copy of this lens just this week.

Still the best bang for buck lens at this focal length..:D

[Ukuleleman]

I sure did miss the date! I have seen kerso mentioned but not known what it means, can you give me a contact, I have bought a lot of stuff recently and savings like this would have kept my bank balance looking healthier

[RTRIDER]

I sure did miss the date! I have seen kerso mentioned but not known what it means, can you give me a contact,

The only place I have seen Kerso is a shop on that common auction site, calls himself Flash Camera. Can't see any 70-200 F4 L NON IS units on there. If you get hold of him, tell him I am after one too.

You can do a search for Kerso on this board and maybe PM him

[busterboy]

Contact him via PM on these boards or email him direct on kerso1123@msn.com...;)

[TMR Design]

This lens is my first and only L right now but it has become my favorite lens to shoot with. I can't say enough great things about it! It blows me away every time I use it.

[crispypie]

Cant say enough good things about Kerso, I paid my hard earned straight into his bank account saturday morning and it arrived the following Tuesday at a great price, ( and no extra tax). Its a great lens by the way!!

[Disturbed UTT]

Got mine in November 08 (I think) Swapped my "P" reg escort for it. I think he got a pretty good deal as did I. Saved me trying to sell the car then buy the lens which was my goal.

Love the lens, just don't get out enough to use it.

[nyrk]

I hope it's all right if I ask it here instead of creating a new thread for it:

I know this lens has a tripod collar but is it really necessary when the max load of the tripod far exceeds the total weight of the camera+lens combo? I haven't noticed stability problem so far, but my experience is limited.

Also, what about monopods? The collar should be needed for that too, right? Thanks for the tips :)

[ed rader]

I hope it's all right if I ask it here instead of creating a new thread for it:

I know this lens has a tripod collar but is it really necessary when the max load of the tripod far exceeds the total weight of the camera+lens combo? I haven't noticed stability problem so far, but my experience is limited.

Also, what about monopods? The collar should be needed for that too, right? Thanks for the tips :)


the tripod collar would be most useful if you shoot in portrait orientation....you rotate the camera which is quicker than using the slot on your ballhead and does not change the height or angle of the lens.

if i were using this lens alot with a tripod i would pony up for tripod collar. i've owned the f4 and the f4 IS for about the past four years and i can only recall using the f4 IS with a tripod once, and that was recently. and i've never used either with a monopod...but if i did use the lens with a monopod i would defintely get the collar.

ed rader

[xepherys]

I just got this lens two months ago as a birthday present from my girlfriend. Shooting with it on my 350D has been very nice indeed! With my tax return I just picked up a 7D and can't wait to fire this comination. *drool* Just need to get out of work today...

[S2K.OGRAPHY]

mine will be here on friday wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :D

[russ_gillespie]

Almost 2011 and still I'm someone finding this thread incredibly useful. I was thinking about getting the IS version, no more thinking is required. I'm getting it :-)

[hieu1004]

Almost 2011 and still I'm someone finding this thread incredibly useful. I was thinking about getting the IS version, no more thinking is required. I'm getting it :-)

It's a great lens - I actually have both the IS and non-IS in my possession right now and for me - the IS is worth every penny. I shoot in dim light quite a bit so it actually made a difference for what I shoot. You will not regret it.

[grahamtheeggman]

Yes an old thread but Ialso found very useful, I was look at a f2.8 IS but the weight was a concern, f4 IS I think will be my best bet having read all comments !!

[mjmackinnon]

I just recently joined the 70-200f/4 club. My thought between the IS or not. As I am not going to be doing many action shots that require hand held, it didn't make any sense to pay the extra.

That said, when I was shooting my daughter last summer playing football (soccer) with my 100-400, I used a monopod. The weight of the lens it just too much to keep steady. I found it easy to keep in the action and get the shots I wanted. I had the IS turned of and it was fine. I don't expect to find the lack of IS to be any limiting factor with this focal range. it's still pretty high on the zoom range when used with a crop like my 50D.

Matt.

[Rigby470]

I have the f4 IS, and it is great. But I'm planning to trade it for the 2.8 IS.

[KVN Photo]

70-200 f/4.0L has been serving me for one year and it has an excellent image quality, I never think about getting the IS version though, because I'm shooting landscape and portrait. I never use it below 1/320 and doesn't need the f/2.8 features because I only shoot at f/11;)

[anthlover]

I think I am more then Sold, but I am also Considering the 200MM F 2.8.

There pretty close in price. At the moment the 70-200 usa around $650 and the 200mm is around $750.

My current Lens is a Tamron 17-50 NOT the VC with Canon T2i. Need something with greater reach indoors and out. Lens often seek their own uses. But I would mostly use it for events my children might be in (a play for example). A Zoo or other trip. Perhaps some family portraits.

Work and young children do not leave much time for being photo creative for its own sake.

From what I have read here and elsewhere the 70-200 gives virtually nothing up on quality or weight and the greater versatility is worth the difference in light gathering.

[versedmb]

I think I am more then Sold, but I am also Considering the 200MM F 2.8.

There pretty close in price. At the moment the 70-200 usa around $650 and the 200mm is around $750.

My current Lens is a Tamron 17-50 NOT the VC with Canon T2i. Need something with greater reach indoors and out. Lens often seek their own uses. But I would mostly use it for events my children might be in (a play for example). A Zoo or other trip. Perhaps some family portraits.

Work and young children do not leave much time for being photo creative for its own sake.

From what I have read here and elsewhere the 70-200 gives virtually nothing up on quality or weight and the greater versatility is worth the difference in light gathering.


I own both and they are both excellent lenses. On a crop camera I think the 70-200 f/4 would be much more useful however. A 200mm prime on 1.6X crop is quite long - definitely not the best choice for indoor use.

I use both of them on 1.6X crop and FF and I consider them mostly outdoor lenses (the 200 prime is very long for indoors and the 70-200 is only f/4 which is slow for indoors). I prefer shorter primes (50 1.4, 35 f/2) for indoor use.

I would recommend going with the 70-200 f/4 in your situation - I think you'll find it much more useful.

[anthlover]

Thank you. More or less what I thought. Even a 28 to 50 range can be tight indoors for close quarters. Its why I bought the Tamron. F 1.2 to 2.8 is preferable indoors, but I figured between flash and the ability to use ISO 800 to 1600 as necessary it will work out well (last camera I had a Rebel XT was not happy above 400 and I really like to keep it in the 100-200 range).

Of course a Fast 50, 85, or 135 is generally great indoors though not as versatile hence again the Tamron.

? Michael do you use any of the S or M Raw Modes? I always just shoot Large Fine, though thats a lot bigger then it used to be:) Do you think those compromise image quality?

[tc4canon]

I wish they did this in black.

[imsellingmyfoot]

Is there a semi-formal review or thread commenting on the differences between this and the IS version? I've been looking for a few days and have yet to find anyone directly address that issue.

[rpoe]

I've found some good reviews on Amazon, lots of comments on F4 vs F4 IS, also regarding F2.8.

[Relaxtech]

It's the best lens in good light condition with reasonable price.

[a.jayamohan]

I bought one F4L 70-200 today, and with my 7D I have clicked a few pictures...this lens is amazing:)

[Seventeen Nineteen]

I got one for Christmas. So far I'm pretty surprised - very sharp wide open at f/4. I'm just not sold on a lens that is this slow. I'd prefer to have a lens with a maximum aperture somewhere 2.8 or lower. I don't like having to bump my ISO so much to keep my shutter speed up where it needs to be. Luckily I have a 5Dm2, so I don't really worry about it. But I'd rather have the light there in the first place.

Very sharp in comparison with the 135L I just sold (and hopefully will not regret TOO much...)

70-200 f/4 wide open....nice bokeh! Pretty Sharp too...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6579142833_817de814e8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579142833/)
Madelena (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579142833/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

70-200 f/4 wide open and ISO 400 at noon! Would rather be at 3.2 for a little thinner DoF and ISO 100-200, but I'm happy
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6579110375_6773b2bf8a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579110375/)
IMG_5333.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579110375/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

For comparison, here's my 135L wide open at f/2 ISO 400 on a cloudy day at 4:30pm. I'm not sure I could have taken this shot at f/4 as my dog is rarely standing still...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6543218527_58873012a2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6543218527/)
IMG_5139.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6543218527/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

70-200 f/4 ISO 200 at 154mm wide open at f/4. Really sharp!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6579139283_519c2e1935_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579139283/)
Something Over There... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhulcher/6579139283/) by Michael Hulcher (http://www.flickr.com/people/michaelhulcher/), on Flickr

[alex.hondsmerk]

Have it, love it. Absolutely perfect for what I do (walkaround photography and rowing) and it doesn't cost a bomb or require biceps the size of babies to carry around! The build quality is absolutely phenomenal compared to the 'lesser' senses I own.