Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 May 2010 (Saturday) 23:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 f/4 non IS

 
Tanglefoot47
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
May 22, 2010 23:09 |  #1

I had one of these years ago adn I can kind of remember it being a pretty good lens. I am thinking of buying one because I don't have a zoom in this range and thought it would be nice. I just bought a 135 f/2 and the 85 1.8. So I am wondering what people think of this lens and can it shoot LL baseball alright? I can't afford the big brother and my other option I have been thinking is the 200 2.8

Mike




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,248 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
May 22, 2010 23:17 |  #2

It's a fantastic lens for the price. Right now you can pick them up for about $575 new with discounts/rebates/cash​back. If the LL games are played during the daytime it will do fine. I just sold mine and only because I picked up the IS version in a large package deal and the price was right.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tanglefoot47
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
May 22, 2010 23:24 |  #3

K6AZ wrote in post #10229226 (external link)
It's a fantastic lens for the price. Right now you can pick them up for about $575 new with discounts/rebates/cash​back. If the LL games are played during the daytime it will do fine. I just sold mine and only because I picked up the IS version in a large package deal and the price was right.

I was kind of thinking it would be pretty good I can shoot baseball with my 100-400 and it actually does pretty good so an f?4 should be good




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,248 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
May 22, 2010 23:32 |  #4

Tanglefoot47 wrote in post #10229264 (external link)
I was kind of thinking it would be pretty good I can shoot baseball with my 100-400 and it actually does pretty good so an f?4 should be good

I really like the f/4 versions, mainly because I only use them during daytime. I imagine using the 100-400L during the course of an entire game would be tiring. I got one in the same package deal but I just can't handle it in the 300-400mm range I needed due to a health issue.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
May 22, 2010 23:33 |  #5

Tanglefoot47 wrote in post #10229264 (external link)
I was kind of thinking it would be pretty good I can shoot baseball with my 100-400 and it actually does pretty good so an f?4 should be good

If you can already shoot baseball with your 100-400, then why get a 70-200? Seems like it would totally overlap your other lenses mentioned and rarely get used.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tanglefoot47
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
May 22, 2010 23:42 |  #6

tkbslc wrote in post #10229298 (external link)
If you can already shoot baseball with your 100-400, then why get a 70-200? Seems like it would totally overlap your other lenses mentioned and rarely get used.

I do not use the 100-400 totally for BB just thought a 70-200 would be kind of fun to have when I am wanting to go light, for some zoo shot's, for when I am close to heme plate and the 100-400 is to long.

Yes if the game goes long the 100-400 can get heavy not so much heavy just a pain in the neck LOL




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Project22a
Senior Member
453 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
May 23, 2010 00:36 as a reply to  @ Tanglefoot47's post |  #7

The handling of the 70-200 is a lot easier than the 100-400 in my opinion due to the size and weight along with the zooming mechanism. The 70-200 f/4L Non-IS is also sharper in my experience.

True the ranges overlap, but if you've got the extra money for it you won't regret it if you tend to carry your camera for long periods of time. Otherwise I'd stick with what you've already got.


B&W film shooter gone digital.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aboss3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,616 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: LOS ANGELES
     
May 23, 2010 00:59 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

I used to love my 70-200 f/4. It's a great, lightweight and sharp lens. No complains so far, and I'm planning to buy my 2nd copy :)


Gear | My gear is changing faster than I can update the signature
VoyageEyewear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonyniev
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,410 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 627
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Las Vegas
     
May 23, 2010 01:12 |  #9

talk about sharpness...is the F4 non is sharper than the is version and how does it compare to 2.8 non is and is versions?


Cheers,
Tony
Leica M10 & M3
Sony A7R & A6000
Canon 5D2 & 7D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
haolam
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 23, 2010 02:05 |  #10

I have a 70-200 f4 non-is and it is very sharp with the proper lighting and it is i think not too heavy.

I have a question though - I'm thinking of going to Yellowstone and was thinking of getting a 100-400. Is there a good reason to keep the 70-200 or should I just sell it to help pay for the 100-400. Aside from what sounds like the weight - the 30mm gap doesn't seem like it'd be worth keeping.

I already noticed that with my 17-55 2.8 IS on my 40D i hardly ever use my 50 1.4 - even in lowlight conditions and am wondering if this will be the same case if I get the 100-400

Thanks
Hao


40D | 17-55 IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 50 1.4 | 580EXII | Sigma 50-500 OS | 70-200 4L - ** FOR SALE ** |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris1
Member
55 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
May 23, 2010 03:14 as a reply to  @ haolam's post |  #11

I have the 70-200 f4 lens and it is sharp the picture quality is good. A very good lens




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
philcozz
Member
195 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Colchester, England
     
May 23, 2010 04:49 |  #12

Another vote in favor of the 70-200mm f/4.

Great IQ for the price!


Canon gear | Micro 4/3 gear |me@500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
willjameson
Member
Avatar
206 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bradenton, FL
     
May 23, 2010 17:59 |  #13

Has anyone tried the f4 non-is with the 2x converter (either canon or aftermarket)? How does it do? Does it lose IQ? I'm considering a TC over a 100-400 because of the price savings, but don't want to sacrifice IQ.


Primary Body: 5DMk2
Lenses: 17-40L, 70-200F4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 70-300IS USM, 28-135IS, 70-200F2.8ISL

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
May 23, 2010 18:31 |  #14

willjameson wrote in post #10232765 (external link)
Has anyone tried the f4 non-is with the 2x converter (either canon or aftermarket)? How does it do? Does it lose IQ? I'm considering a TC over a 100-400 because of the price savings, but don't want to sacrifice IQ.

If the IQ with a 2x was as good as the 100-400mm , why would people ever buy the 100-400mm :lol: ?

You will lose IQ and Af with the 2x.


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,248 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
May 23, 2010 18:38 |  #15

willjameson wrote in post #10232765 (external link)
Has anyone tried the f4 non-is with the 2x converter (either canon or aftermarket)? How does it do? Does it lose IQ? I'm considering a TC over a 100-400 because of the price savings, but don't want to sacrifice IQ.

The 70-200 f/4 with a 2x sucks. I don't know how else to put it. The 1.4x works pretty well.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,702 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 f/4 non IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
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.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Josh Line
332 guests, 233 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, 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.