Help with 70-200 f/4 L lens

Hi guys, just a couple of quick questions about the 70-200 f/4 L (non IS) lens. Have found one for $700 NZ - thats 581 USD or 360 British Pounds. Is this a good price. Also, does the date code have any effect, like are the later model lenses better, and what is the performance like on a 450D, as I have heard a couple of users (that will stay unnamed) say that L series lenses are wasted on crop bodies, and/or the xxxD range. Thanks.

mine worked a dream on my 400D. I Bought new in 2008

That was my first L lens, and I had it on a 450D. It was awesome. Far superior to any other lens I had used. $581 is a little high for what I would pay, but I always look for the really good deals. I got my 1st for $450, and the 2nd for $400. From what I understand, lens prices in NZ tend to stay a little higher so $700NZ might not be a bad deal, I really can't say because I don't know how the economy and prices are over there.

You will see a huge difference between your 75-300mm and the 70-200L. You'll be blown away. People whine that you aren't using the full image circle the full frame lens was designed for, but others say that it's better because the corners are always the softest parts of lenses and a crop sensor "auto crops" those soft edges out It's all in how you look at it. Just like Nikon vs Canon or Honda vs Toyota, crop vs full frame is the same way.

kawi_200 wrote in post #15022477
That was my first L lens, and I had it on a 450D. It was awesome. Far superior to any other lens I had used. $581 is a little high for what I would pay, but I always look for the really good deals. I got my 1st for $450, and the 2nd for $400. From what I understand, lens prices in NZ tend to stay a little higher so $700NZ might not be a bad deal, I really can't say because I don't know how the economy and prices are over there.

You will see a huge difference between your 75-300mm and the 70-200L. You'll be blown away. People whine that you aren't using the full image circle the full frame lens was designed for, but others say that it's better because the corners are always the softest parts of lenses and a crop sensor "auto crops" those soft edges out It's all in how you look at it. Just like Nikon vs Canon or Honda vs Toyota, crop vs full frame is the same way.

Wow - $400 is cheap, I am guessing second hand. You wouldn't happen to know anyone selling one. Also why did you need two? The cheapest i've seen them go for on ebay is about 550 US, but remember its about another $50 just to ship to NZ, then add 20% becasue of the exchange rate...

It is a great lens for the money. Even though I now have the IS f2.8 version, I still have the f4 one and it really produces nice images.
E

Great lens on a 450D. I use mine all the time.

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #15022457
Hi guys, just a couple of quick questions about the 70-200 f/4 L (non IS) lens. Have found one for $700 NZ - thats 581 USD or 360 British Pounds. Is this a good price. Also, does the date code have any effect, like are the later model lenses better, and what is the performance like on a 450D, as I have heard a couple of users (that will stay unnamed) say that L series lenses are wasted on crop bodies, and/or the xxxD range. Thanks.

Maybe not all L glass on a crop is a waste. I use my 70-200 on my 7D pretty much all the time for sports, and to me the crop factor is the best advantage in this aspect. Just depends on what you're shooting. I shoot sports most of the time and I think 7D + 70-200 2.8 is the bees knees (well for high school sports and the distance i shoot at, at least). Unless you're talking about a general walk around L for a crop, then yeah it's a waste because there are EF-S lenses that are up to par with L quality but built for crops. Just my 2 cents lol.

Extramask wrote in post #15023103
Maybe not all L glass on a crop is a waste.

No L glass is a waste on crop.

Sirrith wrote in post #15023138
No L glass is a waste on crop.

Well considering for example 17-40 vs 17-55 on crop, the first has weather sealing and a red ring and the latter has IS and f2.8. By all means the quality is still there, I'm just saying there are EF-S options that are on par with L quality.

EDIT: also comparing f4 vs f2.8. If I can afford the 17-55 I'd get it in a heartbeat lol.

I got mine well before the 450D was released, used it on my 450D and now still use it on my 7D; only reason I'd say to go without it and get a Sigma in the same price bracket is that f4 is high action in low light, such as gymnastics in poorly lit indoors, can be frustrating, still very possible, but frustrating; and it was designed for the film days so you can get hot lights (like looking straight into car headlights at night) hitting the sensor, reflecting back of the rear element so it's a little green ghosting on occasion, again in extreme lighting conditions; that said 99% of the time this is an awesome lens, portraits, outdoor sports, hiking, etc. I've taken at least 100,000 images with it. It's robust as well, 6 years and the UV protecting filter needs replacement (threads got bent by another filter) and it's picked up a few minor scratches, but it's been my go to lens for 6+ years.

It is heavier than it's EF-S counterparts but I personally think there is a quality had for it; and it's lighter than the 2.8 70-200s so even if you add those later, many keep this one because it is light weight, sharp and has great IQ. I've used the IS version, I like this one better.

I got mine new from B&H and was worth every penny for me, if you find it cheaper than that and it's in good shape then go for it. It was also my first L lens, which completely re-adjusted my standards in terms of lenses; so while you may think you're getting a deal now, you'll be saving and spending more down the road for the L quality.

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #15022516
Wow - $400 is cheap, I am guessing second hand. You wouldn't happen to know anyone selling one. Also why did you need two? The cheapest i've seen them go for on ebay is about 550 US, but remember its about another $50 just to ship to NZ, then add 20% becasue of the exchange rate...

I sold my first one for $550USD, because I wanted some extra cash and I had a Sigma 18-250mm that I used more because I didn't have to switch glass all the time (image quality wasn't as good, but I didn't need it back then. The Sigma was perfect) The second one.......... Who could pass up $400?? Resell for $550 again, extra cash lol. By the time I had found the 2nd one I alreaedy had the f/2.8L IS II and didn't want the f/4L. Only planned on reselling it. But I sold it to my friend for the same $400 I bought it for. I gave him a 75-300mm for his birthday once, and after he got the L, he's always talking about how its image quality is so much better than the 75-300 hahaha.