Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto

There are about 100 threads on this lens covering everything you need to know. ;)
 
an f4 with no IS

personally i'd get a couple of primes in the range, and a 1.4tc
more money of course, but buy used and it will be much more versatile
 
All the Canon 70-200s are highly rated, I recall a review done when the whole raft of 70-200s were tested by AP. The Tamron and Sigmas were highly rated budget options with performance close to the Canon and Nikon 2.8s at about 1/2 of the price, but the f4 Canons, especially, the non-IS were the surprise packages, performing nearly as well as the 2.8s but at a fraction of the price...

The biggest surprise of the f4 is that it is so cheap to buy. Nikon users have been clamouring for their version for ages.
 
The 70-200 f4 L is a cracker of a lens for the money. The IS version is marginally better optically but also more expensive. The 2.8s are better but again more expensive - and heavier.

If you don't need the extra speed of the 2.8 then you won't be disappointed by either of the f4's.

Only word of warning - it's the start of a slippery slope - when I got my f4 non-IS (in the days before the IS was around) it made me realise what I'd been missing with my other lenses and L fever has taken over ever since :)
 
Krisstiffer said:
The 70-200 f4 L is a cracker of a lens for the money. The IS version is marginally better optically but also more expensive. The 2.8s are better but again more expensive - and heavier.

If you don't need the extra speed of the 2.8 then you won't be disappointed by either of the f4's.

Only word of warning - it's the start of a slippery slope - when I got my f4 non-IS (in the days before the IS was around) it made me realise what I'd been missing with my other lenses and L fever has taken over ever since :)
Click to expand...



That just about sums it up for me after borrowing my dad's 70-200 f4 L , It's shamed my budget stuff and got me trying to save lol
 
Krisstiffer said:
Only word of warning - it's the start of a slippery slope - when I got my f4 non-IS (in the days before the IS was around) it made me realise what I'd been missing with my other lenses and L fever has taken over ever since :)
Click to expand...

100% agree with that. Its the Crack Cocaine of L lenses.
 
You will want to get the next one
I have the f4 non IS but now also have the f2.8 IS mki
Now want the mkii
 
I got a second hand f4 non IS last year and it really was a fantastic lens. It gave me some excellent photos outdoors but it always left me wanting to get the next best thing. I then moved on to the f2.8 IS MkI and it was also fantastic, but still left me wanting to go the one better to the MkII. I eventually sold the MkI and my old 550D body and got the Holy Grail of 70-200's in the summer. For me it was worth the wait, and the expense, to get there but if you're happy having great photos then the f4 non IS is a brilliant start.
 
I Liked it on a crop body, and I love it on FF:love: I tend not to do low light shooting, so f/4 is enough for my type of shooting and I like the DOF of IT. I Will make the mistake of asking a borrowed MKII from a friend...:shake:

maquina01q.jpg
 
I bought the f4 Non IS for a particular purpose, and ended up keeping it for a about a year. It was a lovely lens but I sold it because I had no further use for it. I've never regretted either the purchase or the sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top