there are so many threads about the 70-200 f/4...is it worth it?

[willg]

i have a ~$600 budget for a lens (not including filters) and I really want a telephoto because the longest i have now is a 105mm and the 200 is nearly twice that which would be great to start out with...and my 105 is a 5.6

[tommykjensen]

Yes. It is every cent worth. You can always later add a 1,4x extender to give You a 98-280 mm F5.6 lens with equally supurb quality.

[lancea]

Not too heavy, not too big (the lens hood makes it look about twice as big as it really is!), really solid. I only got mine last week, but I reckon it's worth it. For the more technical side of things - sounds like you've read lots about it.

[condyk]

It's a very nice lens but only if you want 70-200mm at f4.

You need to know what your long term aspirations are in terms of the kind of shooting you want to mainly do (motorsport, birds, family and friends, indoors, outdoors, wildlife, buildings, street scenes, portraits, etc, etc) and then get a lens that fits most ideally within that.

I had a nice one and sold it because I quickly knew the range wasn't suitable for what I shoot (mainly wildlife) and where. For the range and for very little more cash you can get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which is a better all round lens in my experience, but it is heavier.

An extender is an option but a Canon one is expensive (Kenko Pro 1.4x is good and much more reasonable). I found the AF slowed down a bit, but still fine. The 2x are unusable in my experience unless you want to manual focus only.

So, the range fits nicely with longer or short upgrade plans, if you think it's going to be used, and the price is right. Good SH ones come to market often and sell quickly ... and then probably come to market again :-)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

From what I've heard it's an excellent lens. I've even heard there's no noticeable different in image quality between the 70-200 f/4 and it's big brother f/2.8 that costs a good 600 dollars more. :lol:

I just purchased mine yesterday and can't wait to break it in. I'll let ya know how it is when I get it. ;)

[mdr]

It's absolutely worth it. It is a fantastic lens, and I don't consider selling it, even though I have other telephot lenses on my wish list.

When it comes to travel, there is no alternative in this quality and size/weight class. It is on the short side for wildlife, but the 1.4x TC helps to make up for it.

Hunt one down second hand, and if you sell in the near future, you are more likely to make a profit than a loss.

[Icecamp]

YES.

The 70-200 f/4L is probably Canons biggest bargain. It is a true pro lens in a slightly lighter/smaller package than the 2.8 version. It's sharp, contrasty, very fast focusing, and it's built to take some abuse.

[I Simonius]

i have a ~$600 budget for a lens (not including filters) and I really want a telephoto because the longest i have now is a 105mm and the 200 is nearly twice that which would be great to start out with...and my 105 is a 5.6

The quality of this lens IS amazing, I was stunned by how sharp it is..
But..
remember it ISN'T a 70 -200! -, it is a 112 - 320f4L lens - on a 1.6 DSLR

That means you need enough light or iso speed to shoot at 350-500th sec @f4 minimum for clean shots. In cloudy ol england it is a bit of a problem most of the year.
-I wish I had thought more before I bought it and gone with someone's suggestion of getting the 85 (136 equiv)and the 135 (216equiv) as I don't need a 320mm lens as I don't shoot wildlife and only very rarely sports. I have already bought the 50mm1.4 (80 equiv)

These are faster lenses and not terribly expensive, would have better suited the way I shoot, I have to say sadly that I have only tested the zoom and not taken it out since. Bit of over enthusiasm, as I always referred primes anyway - I will probably sell my zoom (brand new!) and get those lenses instead.

So think carefully about this 1.6 thing of the DSLRs, it has taken me ages to get my aged old head round it :lol:

[BottomBracket]

It's a great lens. I was weighing whether to get this or the 2.8 version, which in the end was too big and much heavier for my use. Much more expensive too! So I settled for the f4 version as I can live with the 1 stop difference.

[Leorooster]

Great lens ... Typical L lens quality ... Very sharp ... relatively light ...

Just ascertain that you can live with f4. If you have a need for indoor shooting, the f2.8 is a better option for you if it's within your budget.

[willg]

wow...not a single bad thing to say about this lens...i guess thats what the L means....i am worried that i will need a 17-40 L if i get this lens because it will put the kit lens to shame

[tommykjensen]

wow...not a single bad thing to say about this lens...i guess thats what the L means....i am worried that i will need a 17-40 L if i get this lens because it will put the kit lens to shame

Well there is one bad thing to be said about this lens :shock:

Once You get it, You want other L lenses and that will be expensive in the long run :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just what we needed,. another thread about the 70-200mm.. :lol:

I was counting just yesterday... I guess this makes 9 on the first page.

[Jon]

I was counting just yesterday... I guess this makes 9 on the first page.

As if your post count didn't tell us this already . . . you have WAY too much time on your hands
;{)#

[Medic1]

Definetly worth it........go get it