Canon 70-200mm f/4 L

[mdaddyrabbit]

I am so excited got my lens this afternoon from B&H, going to give it a workout tommorrow. If I shoot anything worth looking at I will post it.

[tommykjensen]

I can understand that. Its a wonderfull lens.

[Medic1]

Its a great lens....have fun with it

[guitarman3]

Congrats Rabbit! Have fun. Looking forward to seeing some of your shots.

[mrclark321]

Congrats...I just ordered mine too


Dan

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

How fantastic is this 70-200mm f/4L? I need to know, because I'm thinking about trading in my 100mm f/2.8 macro for the 70-200mm f/4L and a 50mm f/1.8.

They'd cost me about the same since I bought the macro from Ritz Camera..... 600.... feel ripped off... want to return and buy the other two lenses from bhphoto.com. What do you guys think?

[darkdrakon]

It's a great lens. one of the best value's for the money. try samys camera or buy a used one and save a few bucks.

[mrclark321]

Don't look on Ebay for used...there going for more used than new, last week one sold for $700

Dan

It's a great lens. one of the best value's for the money. try samys camera or buy a used one and save a few bucks.

[guitarman3]

How fantastic is this 70-200mm f/4L? I need to know, because I'm thinking about trading in my 100mm f/2.8 macro for the 70-200mm f/4L and a 50mm f/1.8.

They'd cost me about the same since I bought the macro from Ritz Camera..... 600.... feel ripped off... want to return and buy the other two lenses from bhphoto.com. What do you guys think?

RbrtP.. just remember that the 70-200 isn't quite as fast as the 100mm you have so be sure that is not a big issue. I got my copy and have had very few opportunities to go out and shoot between work and crummy weather. Wish I could give you reasons based on my experience. Other than being a little slower, the f4 will give you more versatility (except for macro as mentioned above) with its zoom range over the prime.

I think I made the right decision for my limited budget and I'm also thinking about getting the 50mm f1.8 just because I can't afford anything better right now and I need some speed for indoor stuff. Good luck in your decision.

[lancea]

That's funny. I've just got my 70-200 and am thinking that my next lens should be a macro! It is nice, but make sure you won't miss your macro too much. On the other hand, you don't really need that macro. Send it to me :)

[micklemuk]

i also just got this lens yesterday, and boy oh boy am i happy with it :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Aw, crap. Yea, I love shooting macro, so I probably need this lens, but I also just over paid by 140 dollars for it at ritz camera compared to bhphoto.com. So, that the main reason I'm looking at trading it in and getting the 70-200mm from bhphoto.com. The f/4 is scaring me a bit, but then again I can just crank up the ISO to H and 1600.... a lil noise wont kill me for the time being.... Gaaaa, I don't know what to do. I hate choices so much.

The auto focus is a LOT faster on the 70-200 than the 100 macro right? Please say yes!:lol: (honestly of course):cool:

[lancea]

Aw, crap. Yea, I love shooting macro ... but I also just over paid by 140 dollars for it at ritz camera compared to bhphoto.com
Heck, what's $140 extra when you've gotten enjoyment out of it! During the weekend I bought a new DVD player for $90. It does a much better job than the one a bought 3-4 years ago for $1300. Your lens will be as good as new 10 years from now, so you have an investment, not just a throwaway item. :)

As to the f/4 being a problem - given that my other lenses are the same I figured there can't be too many times I'd want 2.8. Then I looked at the weight difference and that put me off the 2.8 (the price had something to do with it too!). Focusing is very fast. I haven't experienced the 100 so can't comment about that. The 70-200 is a bit slower than the 17-40, but still plenty fast.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks lancea! Yea, I figure the 70-200mm is really only going to be an outside lens.... f/2.8 is definately not needed for that. That's what I'm getting the 50mm f/1.8 for! Cloudy days? Eh, don't shoot then anyway....

I went out and returned it today. Bought the 50mm, it's a decent lens. A lot wider than the macro. I've ordered the 70-200 and it's on it's way. Can't wait to get it! I figure in 6-12 months I'll buy back the macro from bhphoto, and probably a tamron 17-35 f/2.8.

I have a question for you though lancea, and anyone else who has the lens as well;
What do you think of the 17-40 f/4L?!?! Because I talked to the guy at ritz camera and he was telling me how most people prefur the tamron 17-40 f/2.8. For it's lesser price, larger apeture, and sharpness. He said the tamron is sharper than the canon L lens... especially at the 17-20mm range? Sharper, and less distortion he said? Is this true or was he just trying to sell me an extra lens today?

[lancea]

Perhaps I need a macro and a 50, or a combination of the two. Fortunately I'm not feeling any desperate need to buy any new lenses now that I have the 70-200.

As for the 17-40 - it is a very nice lens. Most importantly, it looks good :) But, even having had it for a while I still wish I'd bought a 70-200 first then probably a macro. The kit lens gave me pretty good results. But of course the 17-40 is an investment :)

As to a comparison with the Tamron. No idea. I suggest you do a search of these forums if you haven't already, and use Google to search for reviews and comments. I do wonder if sharpness isn't overemphasised when other attributes are important too. Canon have some good comments about sharpness in their paper at http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf.