Questions about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L

rgrebby

rgrebby

Messages
2,835
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Im wondering about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L

Is it worth the £411 price tag

At 70mm can I go wider than f4? like to 3.5 or is that the minimum?
If not that makes it worse than the f3.5 with my sigma

Is this lens any good?

Is it worth spending £714.99 for IS?
If it I could spend that much why not goto £800 for the Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens?

Should I scrap the idea and get a Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM Lens?
 
As with all things in life, you get what you pay for. Canon L lenses are very good quality, very well built, and deliver consistently good results. My wife has the IS version of this lens, and she is extremely satisfied with it.
f4 is the widest it will go, but that is consistent across the whole range.
Perhaps you would get a better deal by buying a good second hand one. Also. maybe you can try it out first to see what you think.
 
Im interested to know about the 70-200 with a 1.4x converter. Does this produce better results at circa 280/300 than the 70-300 USM IS lens which would be at 5.6, which I guess is similiar to the 70-200 with converter?
 
I have one, I love it, it takes grgeat images, I almost cant fault it. BUT it is not worth the UK price tag in my opinion. The fact is there isnt a zoom that is as good, so you just have to decide whether you want the best or not. I would personally suggest buying second hand from a reputable seller.
 
Its the cheapest L glass there is at £ 415. Sigma doesn't have an answer unless you pump in an extra £ 150 for the 70-200 f2.8.

Its $ 579 in the US (B&H) which is £ 395. I think the price is comparable !!
 
The 70-200mm f/4 L is still the sharpest lens in my bag, and I love it. It is often people's first venture into L-world, and so there's a steady flow of second hand ones as folks upgrade to the f/2.8.

New, the £411 UK price is still good value, but if you're happy to purchase online, I suggest getting it from Kerso, whose name you'll find spoken of in good terms here :). He's on Ebay, but will do a better price if you deal with him directly. Mine was £340, about this time last year.
 
Exchange rate December 2007 was over $ 2 for £ 1. Its now dropped to below $ 1.50 for £ 1 ($ 1.47)

As the HK dollar is linked to the US dollar the days of getting a bargain lens by playing the Forex to its advantage is over.
 
Take a look at the For Sale section of this forum right now! I have no connection to the seller but happened to notice the post.
 
I found it new for £380 , some one over on AV forums says they can be bought as cheap as £360 .
 
The 70-300IS is refered to as the hidden L lens.

Thers some sharp pictures from this lens if you check out the hollingworth lake meet

Or

Why not hire a 70-200f4 and check for yourself
 
I've got the 70-200f4 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon f4 is as sharp as a tack. I use the Sigma for the extra light at weddings and the Canon gets popped on for everything else. It's light, super quick (it tracks my whippet head on with no problems) and can easily be used as a walk around.

Not sure about a 70-300mm, never used one so can't comment.
 
rgrebby said:
hmmm thinking the EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM would seem a good bet
Click to expand...

I think you mean the 70-300, not 75-300, right?

The 75-300 is probably the worst lens Canon have ever made.

Any L series lens will be great, definitely worth the extra money.
 
The reviews at
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

should answer most of your questions. The consensus seems to be that the build quality (as expected) and focusing (speed and accuracy) are superior on the 70-200L. Image quality (particularly sharpness) is very similar.

As a light weight carry around longish zoom the 70-300 seems hard to beat as a package. If you want the features of 70-200L and the longer range then you could always get the 70-200L and add a 1.4 converter giving you 110-280 (approx.) at f5.6.

For non-pro use the 4 stop IS, weight and similar image quality would probably swing me towards the 70-300mm IS. For pro use the harder wearing metal body etc. would have to be a factor. If I was not shooting a lot of sport were focus speed was a significant factor then I would get the 70-300mm IS. For general use and occasional sports use then I would get the 70-300mm IS.

John
 
I would say go for the 'L' glass. I am savig for this at the mo and can't wait to dip my toes into the world of pro glass.

You get what you pay for and TBH I don't think £411 is an excessive price for such a good piece of kit. When you realise the extra work that goes into making these lenses it is worth the few pounds more. Also, if you are shooting with an APS sensor the lens becomes a 112mm to 320mm lens.

Go for it.
 
Cant comment on the 70-300 but Ive got the 70-200mm f/4 its an excellent lens really sharp
 
Just re-read my comment and it would read as if I am recommending the 70-300 IS over the 70-200L. I'll add a few words to hopefully make myself a bit clearer :)

If you want consistent fast focusing, sharp and designed to take a few knocks then the 70-200L is the lens to go for. To me, there is no question that the L lens is the better lens.

If you want a good general purpose 70-300 then the 70-300 IS is a good lens with image quality similar to the L lens. It has IS and an extra 100 mm on the long end which make it a good buy in my view for general use.

To some extent we are comparing apples and pears here as they are such different lenses in many ways. The common features are the 70-200mm range (were they overlap) and the similar image quality (with the edge going to the L). The constant F4 and very good image quality when wide open are strong factors for pro use of a lens and the L has both of these.

In good light I would not hesitate to use either and that I think is the difficulty with this choice. They are both good lenses but with different uses and users in the intended market.

If you don't need the build of the L lens and absolute pixel peeping image quality differences are not an issue then the 70-300 IS is a very good choice.

Other reviews

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I have used a 70-300 IS and liked it a lot for general daylight use. I own a 70-200L and was actually considering selling it last week to simplify my lens selection (I have a f2.8 as well). It must have been a moment of madness because all the reasons I got the 70-200 L are still true and it really is a quality lens.

I would suggest reading a few more reviews, perhaps ask a few more questions and be a bit more explicit about the intended use. At the end of the day they are both good lenses in their own way and only you can decide which is most suited to your intended use.

John
 
Hi,

I totally agree with Jonh's comments above and will add my tuppence worth.

£339 plus postage from Kerso for the 70-200 F4L which is a great/superb wee lens, and £319 plus postage for the 70 - 300 IS but it depends on what you want to shoot as it is fairly short for wildlife, birds etc so then you have to look at the 70-300 IS one, or the 300 F4 prime, the 70-300 IS isn't quite as good as the 70-200 but not far off it either, the IS is certainly handy at this time of year. Here's how it normally pans out with the 70-200L, everybody buys one as their first L zoom but very quickly realise that 200mm just isn't quite enough and end up trading it for the 70-300 IS or the 300F4 IS.

My dad has owned both zooms and currently has the 70-300 IS and likes it but he misses his 70-200 L for some reason but he's not sure what, it is certainly faster focussing and very very sharp so maybe that's it. My advice, is buy either one as you will be more than happy with either, but be prepared to trade up the L lens for more reach soon, buy it used and save some money and lose nothing when you get rid of it.

There are plenty for sale just now ( another indication of the upgradeitis bug ) on this and other Forums.

Samples:

Canon 350D with 70-200 F4L
126866212_uDtoB-L.jpg

ISO 400 - 1/500th @ F4.0 (200mm)

Canon 30D with 70-300 IS
279418476_Tg7mA-L.jpg

ISO 200 - 1/200th @ F5.6 (280mm)

My pros and cons if comparing these lens' together.

Pros of 70-200 F4L

Sharp
Resolution is superb
Colour and Contrast
Better Bokeh ( F4 throughout range helps )
Its an L so built to last
Can take a TC with only a little loss in quality


Cons

only 200mm at long end

Photozone Review Ratings of 70-200 F4L
Optical Quality:4 stars
Mechanical Quality:4 stars
Price/Performance: 4 stars

They highly recommend it


Pros of the 70-300 IS

It has IS which is a huge advantage with our weather.

Cons

Slower AF
Not as Sharp
Colours and Contrast a bit muted ( when compared to the F4L )

Photozone Review Ratings of 70-300 IS
Optical Quality: 3 1/2 stars
Mechanical Quality:3 stars
Price/Performance: 5 stars

Mike.
 
I also have the 70-300 IS lens which can be sharp at the high end, but you really need f8 to get it so. On the end of my 40D it's a nice bit of kit and handy for motorsport, but it's AF performance, whilst good, is nowhere near that of the 70-200L. It focuses slower and cannot track as fast. Colour reproduction on the "L" is better too.

So, it's up to you, do you need the extra reach, or would you prefer the higher quality imaging ?

I'm going for one of the 70-200's soon, and I think it will be one of the IS models as they're weatherproofed, the non IS ones aren't (IRRC).

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top