70-200 F/4 L?

[nwafan20]

Well, the time has finally come for me to choose a lens. At my current budget I am leaning towards the 70-200 F/4 L. It is an L lens, but I can pick it up new for about $500 after rebate. What do you guys' think?

[pgengler]

I've never used it, but I've seen plenty of good reviews about it. I'm not sure about what you plan to use it for, but if you plan to use it with a teleconverter you might be in for a surprise (it'll most likely lose autofocus with a 2x teleconverter). If you're planning to use it as-is, it's not an issue. It's also a full stop slower than the (more expensive) f/2.8 versions, which makes it a little less useful in low-light situations, but again, I don't know how you're planning to use it, and outdoors it'll be plenty fast.

[nwafan20]

I'm planning to use it mostly outdoors, as-is without teleconverter. I don't really see a situation I would use it indoors for.

[Derf]

The F4 version is the sharpest of all the Canon 70-200 lens's but you are
sitting there for hours with a magnifier at pixel level to see the differences
with the IS version and f2.8 and the f2.8IS..... here are some things to
remember. If you use the 1.4x multiplier from Canon, there is VERY
LITTLE TO NO image quality difference and you loose 1-stop. The Canon
2x multiplier there is image quality loss and you loose 2 stops.

ANOTHER NOTE... the expensive but worth it 70-200IS IS THE AWESOME
NEW LENS with the IS giving back 4 STOPS :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

ALL VERSIONS of these lenses will autfocus but you may get some extra
hunting of the zoom with low light. But all information is with the Canon
mutiplyers.

as per derf
*****YOU WILL NOT FIND A BETTER MORE PROVEN LENS THEN THE
CANON 70-200 in any version*****

Of course the best lens is a prime in the correct MM for you individual
picture. This lens is tack sharp and the best zoom lens I have seen.....

In a perfect world I would have the f.4IS and the 2.8IS with the 1.4x and
2x mutiplyers....(THEY ARE SOME BUCKS TOO).
the canon 50mm
and the is version of the kit lens.....ahhhhh to dream!



my .02c

[SmAlbany]

I have this lense and have been extremely happy with the results with respect to aviation photography. Here at KALB you can get close enough to the action so 200mm is plenty at the long end for me. I also have the 1.4 TC for the occaision when I need a little more reach. That combo works well also.

F4 is plenty fast outdoors. It's another story indoors. I've used it for hockey with iso set at 800 and it's okay - not great. Good enough for shots for fun.

I think you will be very happy with your purchase as long as the focal length meets you needs.

Good luck,
Dan

edit: BTW, I am using the lense with a 300D

[nwafan20]

Thanks guys,

My budget is in the $500 range, so is this the one you would all reccomend?

Yeah, I would get a prime, but I really need the variation in zoom here at DTW.

200mm should be fine for me, with a 1.6X camera, that is 320mm, and if I do need a little more room, i can pick up the 1.4x, that would be 448mm, that seems more than fine.

Also, if anyone has one they are willing to sell, PM me.

[T-Bird76]

In a perfect world I want a 300mm prime!

[nwafan20]

Well there ya go, looks like your perfect world costs $3,814.16 :D, its F/2.8 too!!

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... t=2&page=2 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=38&sort=7&cat=2&page=2)

[Derf]

DROOL

[uplander]

I find the 200 doesn't give me the range I need sometimes, but I don't have a TC. I'm sure the 1.4x would work well. But besides loosing a stop, you also lose a bit of sharpness with it.

Good luck on your purchase. We'll expect to see more NWA shots from Detroit.

[whakojacko]

I currently have the 70-200 f/4. It is an incredible lens. It is great even with a 1.4x tc. However, I plan to soon trade it in for the IS version because 4 stop is = awesome + everyone has been raving about its ridiculous sharpness and extreme image quality.

[nwafan20]

Qhakojacko, you looking to sell?

[whakojacko]

Qhakojacko, you looking to sell?
sorry, already have a friend in line to get it from me :(

[madcatimages]

70-200
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... roduct=304 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=304)

(Shooting at DTW you probably want at LEAST 300mm, the canon 100-400mm L might be a better for dtw (?) consider sigma lenes too! :)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ (all reviews)

also check dpreview

[nwafan20]

Yeah, the thing though is the price, the 100-400 L is a bit out of my range, same with the 70-200 IS L, so I am looking at the non-IS version.

[nwafan20]

Heres a thought:

Should I go with the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS F/4-5.6 taking into account the recommendation for 300mm.

But, did you mean 300mm in 35mm format or 1.6 Digital Rebel format.

Because 200 at 1.6x is 320mm, and 300mm at 1.6x is 480mm

[Jonesbeach]

I have the 70-200 F/4 L and I love it. I just got it Christmas and it's been a great lens to have. It took me a long time to decide on the 70-200 L over the 70-300. Basically what I read is that if you were to crop a shot taken at 200mm with L glass, it will be better than the 300mm non-L shot at full resolution. Apparently the L glass gives you that much of an edge over the regular glass they use in their other lenses.

[nwafan20]

Hmm, Ok, thanks Jonesbeach, I think I will go with the 70-200 f/4 L then.

[madcatimages]

Heres a thought:

Should I go with the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS F/4-5.6 taking into account the recommendation for 300mm.

But, did you mean 300mm in 35mm format or 1.6 Digital Rebel format.

Because 200 at 1.6x is 320mm, and 300mm at 1.6x is 480mm

U need 300mm w/ a 1.6 crop (XT)

[madcatimages]

I have the 70-200 F/4 L and I love it. I just got it Christmas and it's been a great lens to have. It took me a long time to decide on the 70-200 L over the 70-300. Basically what I read is that if you were to crop a shot taken at 200mm with L glass, it will be better than the 300mm non-L shot at full resolution. Apparently the L glass gives you that much of an edge over the regular glass they use in their other lenses.

I am not to sure about that.
You can always get a 1.4x converter for your 200mm though, 2x might be pushing it though.

[Derf]

Heres a thought:

Should I go with the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS F/4-5.6 taking into account the recommendation for 300mm.

But, did you mean 300mm in 35mm format or 1.6 Digital Rebel format.

Because 200 at 1.6x is 320mm, and 300mm at 1.6x is 480mm

U need 300mm w/ a 1.6 crop (XT)

I do not agree...I have a 300mm but would rather a tack sharp 200 with a 1.4 converter. Image quality is more important than the minor zoom difference...add the 1.4 tc and you got almost the same lens as far as reach but a difference in quality. Every 70-300 that I have seen gets soft at the max zoom. 200 is much better! I have been researching this for a long time.

[nwafan20]

Alright, seems the consensus here is the 70-200 f/4 L for a sub-$500 lens. I think I will go with that, and if I need some extra reach I will order the 1.4x converter.

[GrummanFan]

Well now I'm all messed up. I was all set to go get the Canon 75-300mm USM non-IS lens, but now I'm starting to second guess myself. I know I'm going to need the reach, and I dont want to spend that much on a lens since I'm most likely going to get the 100-400 sometime in the future, but I need a zoom to hold me through at least this summer.

Now I've got some more thinking to do. Thanks alot, guys :evil:

[madcatimages]

The 70-300mm is a GREAT lens, (new versions) u can get L quality photos out of it. Just go to dpreview.com search around in the forums and go to Fred mea%^*% google "FM fred" take a look at the reviews there, that will help u decide.

The 70-200L f4 is also a good lens, but in an earlier post somebody said they rather have that lens and crop it in Photoshop. (thats what I dont agree on)
I belive in fill the frame on the camera rather than in photoshop for best results.
*warning* example~~~~ Take a pic of a jet thats at flight 350, with a 200mmL lens than a 500mm sigma EX lens. now crop that 200mm pic, not so good is it? take the 500mm lens, no need to crop=better IQ.
(just to further my opinion)

But get the 1.4x converter for the 70-200mm, that will be good for starters, but u might want to get the 2x converter eventually. (or at least I did.lol)
the 2x converter will drop down the quality A LOT. (and it will be a slow lens)

Im not sure if the 1.4x converter will drop IQ any. If it does u might want to get the 70-300mmIS. the IS is amazing, saves a lot of pics when in low light.

[nwafan20]

Well now I'm all messed up. I was all set to go get the Canon 75-300mm USM non-IS lens, but now I'm starting to second guess myself. I know I'm going to need the reach, and I dont want to spend that much on a lens since I'm most likely going to get the 100-400 sometime in the future, but I need a zoom to hold me through at least this summer.

Now I've got some more thinking to do. Thanks alot, guys :evil:

The non-IS 70-300 is a worthless lens, do yourself a favor and don't even consider it!!!

[Jonesbeach]

I just want to clarify what I said before about cropping. In general I don't think cropping is better than using a longer lens. But in this case, we are comparing 200mm and 300mm lenses, I think that cropping a 200mm L lens gets you more detail than taking the original shot with the non-L 300mm lens. Only because I think the L glass gives you that much more detail in your picture to work with.
Regarding your other example, I don't think anyone here would disagree that a 200mm L lens can't compare to any 500mm lens of decent quality.
Good luck on your decision.

Steve

[madcatimages]

Well now I'm all messed up. I was all set to go get the Canon 75-300mm USM non-IS lens, but now I'm starting to second guess myself. I know I'm going to need the reach, and I dont want to spend that much on a lens since I'm most likely going to get the 100-400 sometime in the future, but I need a zoom to hold me through at least this summer.

Now I've got some more thinking to do. Thanks alot, guys :evil:

The non-IS 70-300 is a worthless lens, do yourself a favor and don't even consider it!!!

Oh, I messed up. I didnt read that too carefully.

Dont spend your money on the 75-300mm non IS, Its just an OK lens.
You wont get to many "pro" quality images out of it.
Save your money for the NEW 70-300mmIS, or the 70-200mm w/ a 1.4x converter.

[madcatimages]

I just want to clarify what I said before about cropping. In general I don't think cropping is better than using a longer lens. But in this case, we are comparing 200mm and 300mm lenses, I think that cropping a 200mm L lens gets you more detail than taking the original shot with the non-L 300mm lens. Only because I think the L glass gives you that much more detail in your picture to work with.
Regarding your other example, I don't think anyone here would disagree that a 200mm L lens can't compare to any 500mm lens of decent quality.
Good luck on your decision.

Steve

I guess it all depends on how much you crop too.
Canon primes (L) I think you would be able to crop and still have great image quality, but the canon zooms (100-400L...) I still rather have longer reach.

I am sorry It sounds like I am trying to start a fight or something.
I think I am done now. :)

[nwafan20]

Don't worry about it, it is a nice debate!

But the 70-200L w/ 1.4x converter looks good, the only thing I am worried about is it not having IS, but I don't have the money for the IS version.

[GrummanFan]

Don't worry about it, it is a nice debate!

Yup, this thread may have just saved me from making a big mistake!

Look like I'll just have to bite the bullet and get the $500 70-300IS. I was hoping to get a decent nonIS zoom for around $200, but it doesn't seem like that's possible. When, and if, I get the 100-400, Ill sell this one. No reason to have both. And as far as the cropping thing goes, I'm of the opinion that the less photoshop you have to do, the better.

Thanks again for everyones input and expertise, this is why I like the forum so much!

[nwafan20]

I would go with the 70-200 L and a 1.4x converter. That would bring you nearly to 300mm and it is much better image quality. Unless IS is really important to you.

[nwafan20]

Well, now looking over the thread, I have one more question:

Would you rather have the 70-200 F/4 L w/ a 1.4x converter

Or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?

Is IS really that much better? I have situations where every once and a while, an indoor telephoto would be awesome, but it would usually be used outside. This is a really tough decision for me, I would like IS, but everything points to the 70-200 being a way better lens...

[madcatimages]

Well, now looking over the thread, I have one more question:

Would you rather have the 70-200 F/4 L w/ a 1.4x converter

Or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?

Is IS really that much better? I have situations where every once and a while, an indoor telephoto would be awesome, but it would usually be used outside. This is a really tough decision for me, I would like IS, but everything points to the 70-200 being a way better lens...

(My opinion) is, those 2 lenes have close image quality.
I am for as much reach as possible. (300 over 200 anyday;)
The IS is amazing, it saves lots of photos. DTW area dosnt always have the greatist weather, so IS is good for bad weather.
Dont forget when u put the converter on it the f-stop will have a bigger # that means its a slower lens.
I had the 70-300mmIS but I needed more reach thats y i got the 50-500mm bigma. I miss the IS, I can only shoot in bright sun.
The 70-300mm also has the IS panning mode, Thats a very cool feature.

I say do some more research, look at some reviews, forums.
Oh, the 70-300mm portrait problem is now fixed, so no need to wout rry about that.

But, IS will help out A LOT.

[nwafan20]

Well, I decided to lookup on the resource I had forgotten about till now, probably the best lens testing site out there, and his data showed that the 70-300 IS is much sharper than the 70-200 w/ a 1.4x converter. Without the 1.4x, the 70-200L just barely beats the 70-300 IS, but I really need the extra reach.

70-300 IS: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm)

70-200 f/4 L: http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/can ... /index.htm (http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4/index.htm)

So... based on this data, plus IS, I feel the 70-300 may be a better lens.

Do you guys see how torn I am on this?

[GrummanFan]

For me, it comes down to price. Both of those lenses will set you back a little over 500 buckarros, but the teleconverter sets you back an additional 100-200 bucks, depending on what brand you go with. One day, I hope to own a teleconverter along with several prime lenses. But I have only been doing photography for about two years now, so I believe the 300 will suit my needs for the time being. Putting out extra cash for a lens combination that will get me relatively similar results, and adding in the fact that I'm a college student with little to no extra money? That isnt gunna happen.

[madcatimages]

A great place to buy lenses/cameras is Costco.com
You can return the lens 5 years from now if you want.
Last time I checked they had the 70-300mmIS, for al ot cheaper too.

[nwafan20]

MadCat, do you have a Costco membership? I might send you to buy it for me if you do.. :D

[madcatimages]

My MOM does. My friend might have one too. But I dont know if my mom would want to do that.

[madcatimages]

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.as ... c=&topnav= (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11093546&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&N=4001462&Mo=6&pos=2&No=3&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&cat=1236&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&Sp=C&ec=&topnav=)

$650 at ritz, its cheaper at costco.

[nwafan20]

I was joking, I have a friend who has one so I might go with him to look at their prices

[GrummanFan]

B&H has it for $526...they win agian!

[madcatimages]

B&H has it for $526...they win agian!

Costco has GREAT return policy, you cay return it ANY time:)

"Any time", means 30 days, 5 years, 10 years..., it is a VERY good return policy.

Thats y I would go for costco.

[Derf]

B&H has it for $526...they win agian!

Costco has GREAT return policy, you cay return it ANY time:)

"Any time", means 30 days, 5 years, 10 years..., it is a VERY good return policy.

Thats y I would go for costco.
Not anymore...it is only 1 year now

[madcatimages]

B&H has it for $526...they win agian!

Costco has GREAT return policy, you cay return it ANY time:)

"Any time", means 30 days, 5 years, 10 years..., it is a VERY good return policy.

Thats y I would go for costco.
Not anymore...it is only 1 year now

Arg! That not cool :cry:

1 year is still good though.

[nwafan20]

1 Year is standard Canon Warranty if I remember correctly.

[madcatimages]

It is.
but, They wont give you your money back when you get "tired" of the camera and want a new one. lol ;)