i.q of 70-200 F4 L -- Canon Lenses in photography-on-the.net forums

Goldmember

1,093 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 13:35 | #1

well i just purchased my first "L". im very excited. i just got some comparison shots.
lets see if anyone can tell the difference. i can't. :confused:
please no picking on the file info.
somehow i feel that the money spent is now worth it. just my opinion. i hope im proven wrong in the long run.:p

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You dont take a picture ! you just borrow it. :cool:
https://www.facebook.com/lightburstphotography external link
http://ligthburstphotography.webs.com/

LIKES 0

cccc

Goldmember

2,017 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 174
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento, CA

More info

Sep 26, 2009 13:38 | #2

good pictures come from a good photographer, not a good lens.

a good lens should help the photographer take good images. Fast focus, build, constant aperture etc.

take real pictures with it.

LIKES 0

DDCSD

GIVIN' GOOD KARMA

13,313 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2007
Location: South Dakota

More info

Sep 26, 2009 13:40 | #3

That's a really bad subject to test with, unless the majority of the photos you take are underexposed shots of foam footballs indoors using flash.

Also, remember that at f/4 you'll have narrower DOF when compared to narrower apertures. That may be causing you to think that the f/4 shots aren't as sharp.

Take it outside and shoot it.

Derek
Bucketman Karma Fund
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9903477#post9903477
POTN FF L2 MadTown Birds

Full Gear List & Feedback

LIKES 0

gasrocks

Cream of the Crop

13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA

More info

Sep 26, 2009 13:42 | #4

I agree.

GEAR LIST
_______________

LIKES 0

ed rader

"I am not the final word"

23,393 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 578
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley

More info

Sep 26, 2009 13:56 | #5

illrooster132 wrote in post #8713841

well i just purchased my first "L". im very excited. i just got some comparison shots.
lets see if anyone can tell the difference. i can't. :confused:

please no picking on the file info.
somehow i feel that the money spent is now worth it. just my opinion. i hope im proven wrong in the long run.:p

what are you comparing? are they two different balls ?

ed rader

http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
5D4 x2, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, 14L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 28 f1.4 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

LIKES 0

gasrocks

Cream of the Crop

13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA

More info

Sep 26, 2009 14:31 | #6

One shot is on his kitchen table, the other on his neighbour's table.

GEAR LIST
_______________

LIKES 0

JWitmer

Senior Member

275 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: California

More info

Sep 26, 2009 14:37 | #7

The IQ of my 70-200 f/4 is outstanding. Definitely beats out all my other lenses, fisheye included.

Blogspot
Canon 7D, Canon 20D gripped, Tamron 17-35, Canon 50mm ƒ1.8 II, Canon 35-80 "macro", WTB Canon 70-200 ƒ4

LIKES 0

NinetyEight

"Banned for life"

3,207 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 27
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Dorset - England

More info

Sep 26, 2009 15:07 as a reply to @ JWitmer's post | #8

ed rader wrote in post #8713911

what are you comparing? are they two different balls

?

ed rader

It's not just me thinking that then.

gasrocks wrote in post #8714037

One shot is on his kitchen table, the other on his neighbour's table.

:lol: :lol:

Kev

LIKES 0

nostatic

Member

58 posts
Joined Sep 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 21:00 | #9

The only way to really test is shooting scantily clad hot women.

blog | book | stuff

LIKES 0

illrooster132
THREAD STARTER

Goldmember

1,093 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 22:13 | #10

DDCSD wrote in post #8713856

That's a really bad subject to test with, unless the majority of the photos you take are underexposed shots of foam footballs indoors using flash.

Also, remember that at f/4 you'll have narrower DOF when compared to narrower apertures. That may be causing you to think that the f/4 shots aren't as sharp.

Take it outside and shoot it.

you have the most intelligent answer. i went and took your advice.
went out and got some great shots.im very impresed. fast and very detailed pictures. money well spent. :cool:
thnx for the input.

and the ball picts we're taken with different lenses. by the way. :rolleyes:

You dont take a picture ! you just borrow it. :cool:
https://www.facebook.com/lightburstphotography external link
http://ligthburstphotography.webs.com/

LIKES 0

nostatic

Member

58 posts
Joined Sep 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 22:15 | #11

illrooster132 wrote in post #8715850

you have the most intelligent answer. i went and took your advice.
went out and got some great shots.im very impresed. fast and very detailed pictures

Of scantily clad hot women?

blog | book | stuff

LIKES 0

illrooster132
THREAD STARTER

Goldmember

1,093 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 22:19 | #12

JWitmer wrote in post #8714067

The IQ of my 70-200 f/4 is outstanding. Definitely beats out all my other lenses, fisheye included.

you are correct. im happy with it.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You dont take a picture ! you just borrow it. :cool:
https://www.facebook.com/lightburstphotography external link
http://ligthburstphotography.webs.com/

LIKES 0

illrooster132
THREAD STARTER

Goldmember

1,093 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 22:24 | #13

and these

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You dont take a picture ! you just borrow it. :cool:
https://www.facebook.com/lightburstphotography external link
http://ligthburstphotography.webs.com/

LIKES 0

nostatic

Member

58 posts
Joined Sep 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 22:24 | #14

illrooster132 wrote in post #8715887

you are correct. im happy with it.

hmm, wrong subject. I said scantily clad hot women, not ex-wives... (second photo)

blog | book | stuff

LIKES 0

illrooster132
THREAD STARTER

Goldmember

1,093 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009

More info

Sep 26, 2009 22:26 | #15

nostatic wrote in post #8715914

hmm, wrong subject. I said scantily clad hot women, not ex-wives... (second photo)

yeah it does look like her .

You dont take a picture ! you just borrow it. :cool:
https://www.facebook.com/lightburstphotography external link
http://ligthburstphotography.webs.com/

LIKES 0

Jump to forum... • Rules • Forums • New posts • RTAT • 'Best of' • Gallery • Gear • Reviews • Member list • Polls • Image rules • Search • Password reset • Home

Not a member yet?

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

THEME: Paper White | Darker
MARGINS: (this page: defaults)

Latest registered member is griggt
666 guests, 119 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.

	x 1600
	y 1600