70-200 f/4 L

[rklepper]

Well after taking several hundred pictures, both hand held as well as on a monopod and tripod, I have realized this is a great lens, but is not great hand held. It could just be me as I am getting up there in years. I will need to either use a pod each time or upgrade to the IS.

[ddelallata]

How do you like your Canon Monopod? I was thinking of getting one (very inexpensive).

[xuxu1]

Well after taking several hundred pictures, both hand held as well as on a monopod and tripod, I have relaized this is a great lens, but is not great hand held. It could just be me as I am getting up there in years. I will need to either use a pod each time or upgrade to the IS.
That´s what i´m afraid of. Even though i have both a tripod and a monopod i´ll skip that lens and go straight for the 70-200L IS f2.8 in the near future (if i don´t go for the 24-70L first).

ED

[RikWriter]

I am a bit amazed you think the lens is too heavy to use hand-held. It's very very light and I've used it handheld more times than I can count.

[condyk]

I am a bit amazed you think the lens is too heavy to use hand-held. It's very very light and I've used it handheld more times than I can count.

I guess the chap means handshake :) If so, it's a pain when such a light and nice walkaround-ish lens needs a 'pod of some kind to give its best for someone. I'm sorry if that's the case as I remember how excited you were to try it.

So, Mr rklepper, are you saying that after a compare and contrast session with your sample images that the 'pod images came out best most of the time? If so, it looks like an IS lenses is indeed what's needed, but it's heavy and big, or an ultralight, fast to use monopod.

[CyberDyneSystems]

But the IS lens weighs soooooooooooooooooo much more.. it will not be hand holdable easily either.... :(

[ed rader]

>>>Well after taking several hundred pictures, both hand held as well as on a monopod and tripod, I have relaized this is a great lens, but is not great hand held. It could just be me as I am getting up there in years. I will need to either use a pod each time or upgrade to the IS.<<<

my hand was shaking a bit when i took this one but it wasn't the weight of the lens or my age :cool: .

btw, is that back focus :lol: ?

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/225F2F885D6F83B/orig.jpg

[condyk]

my hand was shaking a bit when i took this one but it wasn't the weight of the lens or my age :cool: .


I think that's one of the newer bodies that you can't afford :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

[glangston]

Watch it, that's my sister. :mad:

[xuxu1]

But the IS lens weighs soooooooooooooooooo much more.. it will not be hand holdable easily either.... :(
True... but i´d rather be on the safe side and have the IS version. If it gets too heavy after some (longer) time, then i still have my monopod or if shooting conditions allow it, my tripod.

As i have experienced using my 100-400L, which does´nt count to the light weight lenses, i do manage to use this lens handheld for quite a long time. The 70-200L IS f2.8 is heavier than the 100-400L. The difference in weight isn´t that much though.

ED

[rklepper]

I am a bit amazed you think the lens is too heavy to use hand-held. It's very very light and I've used it handheld more times than I can count.

Well, it may be partially age related. I do not really think that the lens is so heavy, but i just needs some steadying in my hands. I am not sure I said heavy. I am going to save up for the IS 2.8.

I really like the canon monopod, it is cheap and is more convenient than the tripod.

[rklepper]

I think I may also give the collar a try to see if it increases it useability for me. I tell you old age is really no place for the weak.

[rklepper]

I should also qualify my statement that it is not a great handheld lens. What I should have said is it is not a great handheld lens for me.

[Jwreich]

Doc,

I must say I tend to agree with you. When I purchased my 70-200 f4L I was sooo excited. I ran right out and started snapping pics to try out different f stops. What I found out is that I can not hold the lens still at 200mm or even past 135mm.

I was so upset at the lens thinking I got a bad copy. Well I gave it another try and really took time to steady the lens. I also used manual focus, this gave very good results. I think the lens is right on, however I'm not able to keep it still at 200mm. I'm ok with that as I don't see the lens as a walk around...

--

[rklepper]

I took pictures at my daughters softball game and rested my hand on a jacket sitting on the railing to the dugout. Turned out great. So for me I just need some support for this lens. I will just need to learn to work within that knowing my limitations.

[Keiffer]

Is it me or does his shot look good? I didn't see anything wrong with it. Maybe my eyes are going but it looked in focus and pretty sharp. Anyone care to point out the problem.

[pehabe]

btw, is that back focus :lol: ?


indeed... focus on the back.
you should send your lens for inspection ;)
I can give you my address lol

[weasel]

Two things; first, if you just don't have to have a white tripod ring the same ring in black is a good bit cheaper. Second, I began to notice, 2-3 years ago, my pictures were not as nice as usual. I started using a mono-pod. I guess I have my mono-pod with me 85%+ the time I'm shooting, even inside. Mine is not a light weight one, a Bogen 681 with a Slik Standard Ballhead.

[rklepper]

Yes, the monopod works great. I think I just need to extra support. It takes good pictures with the use of the monopod. Not sure if they are great or not, but perhaps with practice. I do not like to post pictures of my kids, wife etc.. on the internet, but here is one I took at the lake. Please let me know if it is okay and what I can do to make it better..
f4 at 200 mm
1/4000
Aperature Priority
ISO 400
http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/5milelake.htm

[SidW]

Doc, I cannot use this lens, hand held, either. Age is certainly catching up with me.
It's a beautiful lens and, to do it justice, I've had to resort to support. Pity the tripod ring is so damned expensive.

Sid

[grego]

But the IS lens weighs soooooooooooooooooo much more.. it will not be hand holdable easily either.... :(

f/2.8 giving you a faster shutter speed. So it gives you a litle more latitude. But yes, its heavy.

When i was photographing an event, i didn't take a monopod and was hand holding it. Difficult to keep up for like an hour.

[rklepper]

Here is another one from the lake.
f4 at 184 mm
1/160
Aperature Priority
ISO 400
http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/5mile_squirrel.htm

[rklepper]

Still another one.
f4 at 200 mm
1/3200
Aperature Priority
ISO 400
http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/floweratlake.htm

[rklepper]

I am going to try the black one that is $80 to see if it helps. Maybe it helps to have the camera/lens more balanced on the pod.

[grego]

Still another one.
f4 at 200 mm
1/3200
Aperature Priority
ISO 400
http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/floweratlake.htm

Why so high of an ISO when you are getting those shutter speeds?

[rklepper]

Maybe a lower ISO would help?

[grego]

Maybe a lower ISO would help?

Lower the ISO, the better quality. Since the subject isn't in motion, you might as well push the ISO as low as possible in each situation.

[rklepper]

Thanks, I will give that a try. I am still trying to get the hang of the camera at the same time I am trying to get the hang of the lens.

[grego]

Thanks, I will give that a try. I am still trying to get the hang of the camera at the same time I am trying to get the hang of the lens.

You're welcome. Good photo and good quality already. It's just if you decide to blow anything up really big, a lower ISO will give you the chance to maximize the image's quality.

[rklepper]

Funny, that flower is actually a milk weed. I just love the look of the flowers.

[MegaTron]

Just got this lens in today, I am no longer an L virgin!