Canon 70-200 L F/4 (Non-IS) questions

Hello all I am very new to POTN, but have been very pleased with the people and (family) so far. I have been saving up for a month or so to buy my first "L" lens. The lens that fits my price range and need is the Canon 70-200 f/4 (non IS). I have heard great things about it. I shoot many different things, but as a birder I also want to bird photography. I do know that this focal length will not be anywhere near what I need, however I cannot afford a longer focal length. My question is this has anyone had good results with the canon tc's both 1.4x and 2x with this lens? Also I have read a few articles that claim Kenko tc's being sharper than canon's. I cannot see this to be true, but thought someone might shed some light!

grettig25 wrote in post #7067878
Hello all I am very new to POTN, but have been very pleased with the people and (family) so far. I have been saving up for a month or so to buy my first "L" lens. The lens that fits my price range and need is the Canon 70-200 f/4 (non IS). I have heard great things about it. I shoot many different things, but as a birder I also want to bird photography. I do know that this focal length will not be anywhere near what I need, however I cannot afford a longer focal length. My question is this has anyone had good results with the canon tc's both 1.4x and 2x with this lens? Also I have read a few articles that claim Kenko tc's being sharper than canon's. I cannot see this to be true, but thought someone might shed some light!

a 1.4 TC works great with this lens. ixnay on the 2x. save your money and get a kenko pro .

ed rader

The other option you may want to consider is the 200 f/2.8 L prime. I just picked up a copy of the mkI version for $475 and I saw one yesterday for $450. The IQ is killer and it takes a 1.4X very well.

versedmb wrote in post #7068035
The other option you may want to consider is the 200 f/2.8 L prime. I just picked up a copy of the mkI version for $475 and I saw one yesterday for $450. The IQ is killer and it takes a 1.4X very well.

Verse have you tried the latter at all, just wondering the comparison of the two. Now I'm interested in figuring out which would be better, thought I narrowed it down. I was unaware that the 200 was an "L". Would be great to have the extra stops of light!

The 70-200mm lens you mention is hard to beat for the money.
Will be a great introduction into the "L" series lenses. Can get
addictive, however

Like all photographic equipment, recommending a certain brand
of TC's can be a bit subjective. You'll read both good and bad
about each of them. The real test is what you like. This sometimes
means trying two or three brands. Just make sure its an accurate comparision.

And - welcome for the POTN Forum!

I can speak to the 70-200 2.8L + 1.4 tc. Had the use of one for several weeks over the last part of Dec. I do wildlife and birding as well. This was a 'knock your socks off' combination and I felt honored to have had the opportunity to use it if only for a short time. Had previously used the 70-200 f/4 with 1.4 tc and comparing it with my 70-300 IS it was really a tossup as far as IQ even at the long end.

I have both, the 70-200 and 200. You can't go wrong with either.

You are exactly where I was three years ago. Like you, I'm a serious birder and wanted to start a photographic life list. I couldn't afford (or justify) a $1,000 for a 400mm so I had to choose between a 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) and the 200mm f/2.8L. I went with the zoom, because I wanted the range.

I loved the zoom, liked the image quality, but found the lens frustrating. In marginal light, or under a canopy I couldn't get a good shot. I missed many shots due to the speed of the lens. I took some great shots in good light, but not all bird species like good light. Many seldom venture out in the good light. Try to find a Louisiana Waterthrush in sunlight - it's tough.

Luckily, I was saved by ebay and the newly introduced IS version of my f/4L lens. I haven't looked back.

If I were in your situation with the current knowledge I have, I'd get the f/2.8L prime 200mm and plan on adding the 1.4TC or 2.0TC soon. You'll have a fast 200mm for low light, and a 400mm for better conditions where the birds are a little further away.

grettig25 wrote in post #7068089
Verse have you tried the latter at all, just wondering the comparison of the two. Now I'm interested in figuring out which would be better, thought I narrowed it down. I was unaware that the 200 was an "L". Would be great to have the extra stops of light!

I'm not a birder, so I don't usually use more than 200mm. My understanding though is the 200 f/2.8 takes a 1.4X better than the 70-200 f/4. I will say that my 70-200 f/4 is very sharp however.....



70-200 f/4 @ 200mm, f/4...

I have the 70-200 f4L (sans-IS) and the Kenko Pro 1.4TC, I'm extremely happy with both. The lens is sharp, fast and reliable. The TC has great Image quality.

Luigi

Rubberhead wrote in post #7068230
You are exactly where I was three years ago. Like you, I'm a serious birder and wanted to start a photographic life list. I couldn't afford (or justify) a $1,000 for a 400mm so I had to choose between a 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) and the 200mm f/2.8L. I went with the zoom, because I wanted the range.

I loved the zoom, liked the image quality, but found the lens frustrating. In marginal light, or under a canopy I couldn't get a good shot. I missed many shots due to the speed of the lens. I took some great shots in good light, but not all bird species like good light. Many seldom venture out in the good light. Try to find a Louisiana Waterthrush in sunlight - it's tough.

Luckily, I was saved by ebay and the newly introduced IS version of my f/4L lens. I haven't looked back.

If I were in your situation with the current knowledge I have, I'd get the f/2.8L prime 200mm and plan on adding the 1.4TC or 2.0TC soon. You'll have a fast 200mm for low light, and a 400mm for better conditions where the birds are a little further away.

I know exactly what you mean. My thoughts were exactly this. Magee Marsh being one of my favorite spots for birds, esp warblers, it is completely covered in trees leaving very little light. My idea to get a good photo of a Connecticut Warbler would fall into the same situation as the Waterthrushes. The only concern that I have with the 200 2.8 prime, is that I'm afraid I wont have enough room for portraits. Since I must make this an all around lens, I must check every angle. Especially in my small studio, I have about 12 feet to work with. I read that it will focus down to 4.9' and I'm worried I won't have enough room. Does anyone know if this will be enough room?

grettig25 wrote in post #7068602
I know exactly what you mean. My thoughts were exactly this. Magee Marsh being one of my favorite spots for birds, esp warblers, it is completely covered in trees leaving very little light. My idea to get a good photo of a Connecticut Warbler would fall into the same situation as the Waterthrushes. The only concern that I have with the 200 2.8 prime, is that I'm afraid I wont have enough room for portraits. Since I must make this an all around lens, I must check every angle. Especially in my small studio, I have about 12 feet to work with. I read that it will focus down to 4.9' and I'm worried I won't have enough room. Does anyone know if this will be enough room?

Magee Marsh sounds a lot like Four Holes Swamp. He's a photo I took with the 70-200mm f/4L IS at 1/125 seconds. It's not a Connecticut but the shot would be difficult or impossible without IS:

grettig25 wrote in post #7068602
I know exactly what you mean. My thoughts were exactly this. Magee Marsh being one of my favorite spots for birds, esp warblers, it is completely covered in trees leaving very little light. My idea to get a good photo of a Connecticut Warbler would fall into the same situation as the Waterthrushes. The only concern that I have with the 200 2.8 prime, is that I'm afraid I wont have enough room for portraits. Since I must make this an all around lens, I must check every angle. Especially in my small studio, I have about 12 feet to work with. I read that it will focus down to 4.9' and I'm worried I won't have enough room. Does anyone know if this will be enough room?

Now you changed the parameter of the discussion If it was me, I'd choose the 70-200 for the versatility. You'll have to live with the slowness of the lens @ F4, or be stuck with the focal length of 200 F2.8 or spend the $1000 dollars for the 70-200 F2.8 or IS. There are trade offs with everything and usually it's money and how much you want to spend. For me, I'd jack up the iso with the 7-2, get the shot and remove any noise in post. Just my .02

Ron

Rubberhead wrote in post #7070043
Magee Marsh sounds a lot like Four Holes Swamp. He's a photo I took with the 70-200mm f/4L IS at 1/125 seconds. It's not a Connecticut but the shot would be difficult or impossible without IS:

Unfortunately, with only 200mm, most of my warbler shots are "environmental" shots:

Rubberhead I know what you mean about the environmental shots. However, I think that is an amazing photo of the Prothonotary Warbler! Awesome bird!

jerokaz wrote in post #7070131
Now you changed the parameter of the discussion If it was me, I'd choose the 70-200 for the versatility. You'll have to live with the slowness of the lens @ F4, or be stuck with the focal length of 200 F2.8 or spend the $1000 dollars for the 70-200 F2.8 or IS. There are trade offs with everything and usually it's money and how much you want to spend. For me, I'd jack up the iso with the 7-2, get the shot and remove any noise in post. Just my .02

Ron

Jerokaz, I know I did change the idea behind the discussion. It makes it worse that I am a horrible decision maker in the first place. At least trying to make a decision. I am still discerning what I am going to do, but leaning towards the 70-200, only because the birding part is an added bonus and not my main work!

Grant,

I hope you didn't take what I said the wrong way. I meant the first part in jest. And I kinda had a chuckle to myself, because as I was reading the thread, I finally got to the point where you had it narrowed down, and there is a new wrinkle to consider. Believe me, those ramblings are going on inside my head all the time. The good thing about buying any of those lenses that were discussed is that all of the L's hold they're value, so you could sell for what you bought for and buy the lens that you want. Another suggestion would be to rent those lenses and see which one suited you the best and then buy. Good luck,

Ron