Canon EF 70-200mm F4L

WoZZeR

WoZZeR

WoZZeR

Associate
Joined
19 Jan 2007
Posts
2,068
Location
Northampton
OK, so I rented the EF 70-200mm F4 L USM non IS for the weekend as am thinking of buying one as a general purpose walkabout lens.

Compared to my EF 75-300 USM III it is very sharp, the shorter reach is more than compensated for with far more detail. In fact quite a revelation to me. I did struggle with the exposure a bit as I was used to underexposing on the 75-300 and it seems there is no need to do this on the 70-200.

So, the only thing that I don't like about it is minimum focus distance of 1.2m.

Question, according to assorted websites a 25mm extension tube will increase magnification from 0.21 to 0.34 or 0.36 and decrease the minimum focus distance.

Is this noticable in the real world?

And/or does anybody have any examples please?

EDIT: Just croppped an image taken with my old 350D and the 70-200mm F4L pixel for pixel or whatever it's called, anyway, not resampled:

f4ltest1.jpg
 
Last edited:
The MFD should decrease to 0.75m in that scenario.

Whether that is important to you depends entirely on what you want to shoot. The 1.2m MFD is standard for such a lens..

This isn't a macro lens and even with the extension tube you are not close to macro territory.
To help you understand a macro ratio of 1.0 (1:1) means something the size of the sensor will cover the whole sensor, something 2cm in real life will be 2cm on the sensor, so knowing the sensor size you know how much of the frame this takes up. 0.5 (or 1:2) means something 2cm in real life will be 1cm on the sensor.

Thus the macro factor you just multiply by the object size to get the size on the sensor.
 
I've used a 25mm extender with my 200-400mm and it's noticeable but then again it's a lot longer.

I think you'd notice the difference but I doubt it would be enough to be that useful.
 
D.P. said:
The MFD should decrease to 0.75m in that scenario.

Whether that is important to you depends entirely on what you want to shoot. The 1.2m MFD is standard for such a lens..

This isn't a macro lens and even with the extension tube you are not close to macro territory.
To help you understand a macro ratio of 1.0 (1:1) means something the size of the sensor will cover the whole sensor, something 2cm in real life will be 2cm on the sensor, so knowing the sensor size you know how much of the frame this takes up. 0.5 (or 1:2) means something 2cm in real life will be 1cm on the sensor.

Thus the macro factor you just multiply by the object size to get the size on the sensor.
Click to expand...


Cheers for that, I am not seeking macro as it happens, just perhaps getting your common or garden butterfly, dragonfly or flower a little larger.

0.75m sounds OK, might do the trick.

Cheers
 
Just been comparing the magnification figures from my lens to the 70-200mm and you should be able to get decent shots of bigger things as long as you can get close enough i.e. minimum focus distance.
 
Excellent news, thanks for the research, it's always difficult to visualise what figures and numbers mean in real life.

I think I will go for this lens, it seems to have little if any CA and isn't too heavy to cart about all day. Hopefully it will work well when I move up to full frame in the near future.

I took 2377 piccies on Saturday with it and 127 today, so I have given it a work out...... Nightmare sifting through the images though.
 
Aye, it's a bit of a chore but worth it when you get something good.

The default magnification figures for your lens + tube are a bit less than my lens with the tube and extender but that's to be expected.

You might even be able to pop in a 1.4x extender in there too when you've got the extension tube fitted. I was messing around and I fitted a 1.4x extender to my 100mm macro :D It doesn't fit on it's own but with the extender in place then it does actually work. Without the extension tube the 1.4x won't physically fit but the tube gives it enough space.
 
I did rent a 1.4 Mk III Extender with it.

I tested it indoors on a tripod and it didn't look as if it was much better than the 75-300.

However, out in the real world it did a hell of a better job with some Great 'not finches' than the 75-300. My best ever Great 'not finches' piccies.

I should have tried using the extender on some smaller closer stuff but it didn't cross my mind at the time.

Original word for popular small bird was starred out......
 
This was the first L lens I bought. It's fantastic, especially when considering the price. I find it MUCH easier to use than the 2.8mkii which is unbelievably heavy in comparison. It's so fast to focus, I was very surprised, and is actually faster than some of my primes. Definitely a lens I'd recommend to everyone.

A part of me wishes I hadn't given it away to my dad :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom