Canon 70-200mm f/4 L

I am so excited got my lens this afternoon from B&H, going to give it a workout tommorrow. If I shoot anything worth looking at I will post it.

I can understand that. Its a wonderfull lens.

Its a great lens....have fun with it

Congrats Rabbit! Have fun. Looking forward to seeing some of your shots.

Congrats...I just ordered mine too


Dan

How fantastic is this 70-200mm f/4L? I need to know, because I'm thinking about trading in my 100mm f/2.8 macro for the 70-200mm f/4L and a 50mm f/1.8.

They'd cost me about the same since I bought the macro from Ritz Camera..... 600.... feel ripped off... want to return and buy the other two lenses from bhphoto.com. What do you guys think?

It's a great lens. one of the best value's for the money. try samys camera or buy a used one and save a few bucks.

Don't look on Ebay for used...there going for more used than new, last week one sold for $700

Dan

RbrtP.. just remember that the 70-200 isn't quite as fast as the 100mm you have so be sure that is not a big issue. I got my copy and have had very few opportunities to go out and shoot between work and crummy weather. Wish I could give you reasons based on my experience. Other than being a little slower, the f4 will give you more versatility (except for macro as mentioned above) with its zoom range over the prime.

I think I made the right decision for my limited budget and I'm also thinking about getting the 50mm f1.8 just because I can't afford anything better right now and I need some speed for indoor stuff. Good luck in your decision.

That's funny. I've just got my 70-200 and am thinking that my next lens should be a macro! It is nice, but make sure you won't miss your macro too much. On the other hand, you don't really need that macro. Send it to me

i also just got this lens yesterday, and boy oh boy am i happy with it

Aw, crap. Yea, I love shooting macro, so I probably need this lens, but I also just over paid by 140 dollars for it at ritz camera compared to bhphoto.com. So, that the main reason I'm looking at trading it in and getting the 70-200mm from bhphoto.com. The f/4 is scaring me a bit, but then again I can just crank up the ISO to H and 1600.... a lil noise wont kill me for the time being.... Gaaaa, I don't know what to do. I hate choices so much.

The auto focus is a LOT faster on the 70-200 than the 100 macro right? Please say yes! (honestly of course)

Heck, what's $140 extra when you've gotten enjoyment out of it! During the weekend I bought a new DVD player for $90. It does a much better job than the one a bought 3-4 years ago for $1300. Your lens will be as good as new 10 years from now, so you have an investment, not just a throwaway item.

As to the f/4 being a problem - given that my other lenses are the same I figured there can't be too many times I'd want 2.8. Then I looked at the weight difference and that put me off the 2.8 (the price had something to do with it too!). Focusing is very fast. I haven't experienced the 100 so can't comment about that. The 70-200 is a bit slower than the 17-40, but still plenty fast.

Thanks lancea! Yea, I figure the 70-200mm is really only going to be an outside lens.... f/2.8 is definately not needed for that. That's what I'm getting the 50mm f/1.8 for! Cloudy days? Eh, don't shoot then anyway....

I went out and returned it today. Bought the 50mm, it's a decent lens. A lot wider than the macro. I've ordered the 70-200 and it's on it's way. Can't wait to get it! I figure in 6-12 months I'll buy back the macro from bhphoto, and probably a tamron 17-35 f/2.8.

I have a question for you though lancea, and anyone else who has the lens as well;
What do you think of the 17-40 f/4L?!?! Because I talked to the guy at ritz camera and he was telling me how most people prefur the tamron 17-40 f/2.8. For it's lesser price, larger apeture, and sharpness. He said the tamron is sharper than the canon L lens... especially at the 17-20mm range? Sharper, and less distortion he said? Is this true or was he just trying to sell me an extra lens today?

Perhaps I need a macro and a 50, or a combination of the two. Fortunately I'm not feeling any desperate need to buy any new lenses now that I have the 70-200.

As for the 17-40 - it is a very nice lens. Most importantly, it looks good But, even having had it for a while I still wish I'd bought a 70-200 first then probably a macro. The kit lens gave me pretty good results. But of course the 17-40 is an investment

As to a comparison with the Tamron. No idea. I suggest you do a search of these forums if you haven't already, and use Google to search for reviews and comments. I do wonder if sharpness isn't overemphasised when other attributes are important too. Canon have some good comments about sharpness in their paper at http://www.photoworksh​op.com/canon/EOS_Digit​al.pdf.