RichardtheSane
5th of September 2004 (Sun), 07:19
OK, I did part one of the review on the thread below, kind of a first impressions piece.
70-200 L First Impressions (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41300)
I use the lens on a 10D at the moment.
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.
70-200 L First Impressions (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41300)
I use the lens on a 10D at the moment.
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.