70-200L 4f test @ Camera Store

Hi gangs,

I thought I would share some test photos at taken during my last trip to a camera. I was trying out the EF 70-200 F4 and had some issues with WB:

http://www.flickr.com …721575943800992​70/detail/

In general, I had issues with WB on 70-200F4 at 200mm shooting at a flourscent light sign. AWB works sometimes and after switching to Flourscent light preset, WB still not very accurate or reliable at all.
However, 70-300IS and 100-400L did not encounter this WB issue.

The salesman was clueless too, nothing against him tho, he is a very knowledgable guy.

I also tried 70-300IS and 100-400 to compare their color contrast. Nothing scientific.

Comments?

bufferbure1 wrote in post #2276331
I was trying out the EF 70-200 F4...

I also tried 70-300IS...

Which of the two did you prefer?

i did the same and tested the 70-200mm F4L in my local camera shop... i loved it but i must say i wasnt quite used to the focal length. at 200mm every movement was like OOOOHH cant keep it steady ^_^ but the images didnt blur, and that was at 1/60th...

SoundsGood wrote in post #2276498
Which of the two did you prefer?

My take:
70-300IS: more value, more possibility, more photos period, IS will yield lower ISO noise in photos if handheld. Solid build and feel
Cons: no hood, zoom extends (but makes it compact)

70-200L f4: more quality, both in built and in sharpness, better for cropping, contrast about the same as IS to me), 67mm Yeah(same as 17-85IS)!!. A little faster AF & constant F4.
Cons: Require more skill to handle. Weird WB issue with the store copy, $another $3XX for the 1.4x tele converter in the near future

Both lens cost about the same in Canada after the hood factor on 70-300IS

Easier said than to decide.

bufferbure1 wrote in post #2276646
70-200L f4: more quality, both in built and in sharpness, better for cropping, contrast about the same as IS to me), 67mm Yeah(same as 17-85IS)!!. A little faster AF & constant F4.
Cons: Require more skill to handle. Weird WB issue with the store copy, $another $3XX for the 1.4x tele converter in the near future

Again... which one did you prefer?

SoundsGood wrote in post #2276836
Again... which one did you prefer?

I will tell you after I've bought it
Seriously, F4 is in the lead at this moment. I don't think I could go wrong with either choice though.

hhmm... i think its not the WB issue on the test that you made... looks like the metering is off.

I thought the camera controls white balance and not the lens.

NIKONUSER wrote in post #2277145
hhmm... i think its not the WB issue on the test that you made... looks like the metering is off.

Could be. It only happened on the 70-200 F4 @ 200mm. Metering is done thru the lens correct?

White balance is done by the camera, not the lens. fluorescent lighting is notoriously difficult as each tube has its own particular 'white balance' and these can change constantly even out the same tube. That's probably why you noticed the problem only with the one lens.

the only way to resolve the issue is to set custom white balance or set the white balance in PP if you shoot RAW

steved110 wrote in post #2277792
White balance is done by the camera, not the lens. fluorescent lighting is notoriously difficult as each tube has its own particular 'white balance' and these can change constantly even out the same tube. That's probably why you noticed the problem only with the one lens.

the only way to resolve the issue is to set custom white balance or set the white balance in PP if you shoot RAW

Exactly right! I will go on to say that Canon Camera are poor under flourescent lighting in general- know fact. If you would have switched to "kelvin" and set it to 2900 degrees your pics would have come out much better. This is without flash of course. With flash set to "flash".
The F4 is a super lens and very sharp/contrasty/ and has excellent saturation.
Gerry

The 70-200mm f4 L is as sharp as you could imagine... Yup, that sharp!