Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L is?

cpinch73 · 10 Dec 2010 at 10:49

Canon 70-200 f4 is lens

Thinking of getting this lens. Have any of you got it and what are your views on it.

I do a lot of motor sport photography and feel this would be a great lens for it?

neil_g · 10 Dec 2010 at 10:55

youll only need IS for motorsport if you like a lot of panning.

cpinch73 · 10 Dec 2010 at 10:59

Which I do like to do ;0)

a1ex2001 · 10 Dec 2010 at 11:54

Depends on the circuit and your access, for some 200mm will be long enough sadly for an increasing number of tracks if your shooting from the public areas 200mm is not enough reach.

It's a cracking lens but only you will know if it's long enough for your location and fast enough for the light levels you normally experience.

cpinch73 · 10 Dec 2010 at 11:58

I manage to always get close to the action. Goodwood festival of speed and Brands etc, so I'm thinking this could be a great lens for me. I just wanted to know what the quality was like?

Fusion · 10 Dec 2010 at 12:27

cpinch73 said:
I just wanted to know what the quality was like?

You won't have any complaints- very sharp, great colours, low levels of CA, distortion etc. It's an L lens, the quality is a given.

cpinch73 · 10 Dec 2010 at 12:49

Superb! Thanks for the info

Schizophonic · 10 Dec 2010 at 12:50

I've got one, its fine for what you want it to do and depending where you stand.

The IS does make a bit of sound and might be a bit slower than the F/2.8 but will be fine.

cpinch73 · 10 Dec 2010 at 12:56

Is the 2.8 worth being twice as much tho?????

Schizophonic · 10 Dec 2010 at 13:00

if its track days then its fine as there should be enough light. The F/2.8 is only for night usage or if you really want to create the DOF.

If i was you, work with the F4 IS and see what kind of shots you get and see if your happy with it. They say that the IS does bring an F-stop or more.

In terms of money, there is a big differance between the F/2.8 and F/4.

Throttle · 10 Dec 2010 at 22:39

i have one and rate it very highly. When taking panning shots of motocross etc i tend to switch the IS off and just aim to have a high shutter speed. I find the IS becomes very usefull for wildlife & portraits. The lens handles very well as it is quite light weight. The new 2.8 version has great reviews and would be an advantage in low light situations but i belive it is also quite a bit heavier.

heres a motocross panning shot IS off

heres a birdy IS on

Stupot_ · 10 Dec 2010 at 23:10

It's an awesome awesome awesome lens. Both the IS and non IS.

cpinch73 · 11 Dec 2010 at 09:09

Awesome pics Throttle! You've sold it to me lol

footman · 11 Dec 2010 at 11:50

I have the non-IS version. I keep thinking I'll get shot of it as it doesn't get that much use.

Then I use it and realise what a brilliant lens it is.

cpinch73 · 11 Dec 2010 at 20:05

Sounds like it's well worth me getting one. I'd love the 2.8 but I just don't think I can afford it :0(

Overlag · 12 Dec 2010 at 11:42

If you do Brands a lot 200mm will be fine, however 70mm may be a bit long though, One of the reasons i hold back really. i shoot between 60-110mm at Brands, but would love a better quality lenses for it

ChrisD. · 12 Dec 2010 at 14:52

If it's motorsport, then without an extender for the 70-200L, IMO the 100-400L is a better choice.

cpinch73 · 13 Dec 2010 at 01:02

But using my 7D with a crop factor of 1.6 the 200mm comes out at roughly 320mm anyway?

Gaffer · 13 Dec 2010 at 06:39

cpinch73 said:
Is the 2.8 worth being twice as much tho?????

Is that unreasonable for a lens that lets in twice as much light?

Andrew

cpinch73 · 13 Dec 2010 at 06:46

Hmm not unreasonable I guess..... Just frustratingly out of my reach :0(