Canon EF 70-210mm f/4

[kandyredcoi]

well, did a search didnt really see a thread for this lens so here it is...lets show some love for Canon's old school 70-210 f/4 push/pull zoom lens

i guess i can start, here are a few shot with my 5d2

[friz]

I'll add a couple

[kandyredcoi]

^sweet pics!!!

[friz]

I bought this lens to try out the focal length before investing in the L lens. I am now finding it hard to part with this one to buy the L lens. Go figure.

[Rudeofus]

It's one of these lenses you get at some point in your life and then you're stuck with it for the rest of your life. You get all the big glass, but unlike the big glass the 70-210 sits in your bag when you need it. There are sharper lenses in this range, but they don't do 1:4 macro or weigh 3 times as much and more (hence you don't take them with you casually). You think you need a lens with faster AF but realize that even fast paced sport activities can be covered well with this lens.

[Rudeofus]

So to conclude this double post: this lens is an excellent cure against gear aquisition syndrome and has saved me a lot of money. I accept that the 70-200 F/4 L IS is a better lens but I wouldn't spend the price difference on it.

And to state it again: because it is so small and light weight this lens is there when you need it and when you least expected that you will need it.

[kandyredcoi]

Originally Posted by Rudeofus

And to state it again: because it is so small and light weight this lens is there when you need it and when you least expected that you will need it.

+1

unless your hardcore and dont mind lugging the long white lenses around

this lil lens is great especially outdoors!!!

[kandyredcoi]

took this pic on the MACRO setting in my home built mini studio

[Mike Deep]

I had this lens and hated it so much I gave it away after replacing it with a 70-210 USM and a 70-200 f4L.

[kandyredcoi]

^i can tell how much u hated it great shots

[Rudeofus]

Mike, nobody would doubt the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS to be better/faster/quicklier focusing/sharper/offering IS/whatever, but not to the degree that I would spend 15 times the price of my 70-210 F/4 on it. Nobody would doubt the 70-200 F/4 L to be better/quicklier focusing/sharper/whatever, but not to the degree that I would spend 5 times the price of my 70-210 F/4 on it. And the thrill of lens uber sharpness wears off pretty quickly IMHO. The thing many owners hate about this lens is knowing there are better lenses out there (call it gear acqisition syndrome if you want).

[Mike Deep]

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect. The only thing I haven't really tried with it is close focus, since I have several lenses better suited to those tasks now. The L's are in a different league, of course.

[kandyredcoi]

Originally Posted by Mike Deep

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect. The only thing I haven't really tried with it is close focus, since I have several lenses better suited to those tasks now. The L's are in a different league, of course.

yea the slow focus is probably my only pet peeve about the lens

[Rudeofus]

Originally Posted by Mike Deep

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

I never noticed CA with this lens but to be honest I never looked too hard for it, it wasn't obvious to me at least (and yes, I own the 85L, so I know what CA looks like ). We agree that sharpness is less than stellar, especially @210mm and wide open. The small manual auto focus ring could be better, but apparently small MF rings were the big rage back then when the lens was designed, just look at Canon's other ugly ducklings. AF clearly does not sound like USM but this hasn't bothered me so far. Hey, it's a 100 € lens after all.

What really surprized my was your complaint about bokeh. My sunset picture above shows beautiful blur which easily matches the bokeh of some lenses in the bokeh-thread. friz's tiger image confirms this, too.

Originally Posted by Mike Deep

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect.

In this case you got a special deal on this lens, in good ol' Europe the USM goes for 150-200 €, which is twice the price of the 70-210 F/4, plus the F/4 has macro and F/4 at the long end, which is nice to have.

Seriously, why would one compare this 100€ lens to lenses at five times the cost or more? The biggest competitors to the 70-210 F/4 are not Canon's other 70-2x0, it all the third party 70-300 lenses, which are similar in price and performance, offer more FL while being one stop slower.

[Mike Deep]

The CA (In my copy at least) was very frustrating, a diffuse purple or green glow around objects that were transitioning to out of focus. It wasn't like typical fringing you could just zap out in post. In focus areas didn't seem to show much CA, oddly enough. The problem disappeared stopped down too, but a lens that's only acceptable at f8 isn't terribly useful.

Re: bokeh, sometimes it was quite good, sometimes it was bad, and there was more variation than any other lens I've used so I suspect it was something about the lens. It definitely did not handle busier situations. Maybe it was my copy. Unfortunately I've long discarded the shots I didn't like.

As for the USM, I've also seen it go for about the same price as the f4 at KEH ($150 range). I came across a bargain but the comparison should still be valid I think.