Canon 70-200 F4 L Lens Thoughts?

jchiver

jchiver

jchiver

Associate
Joined
5 Jan 2004
Posts
528
Location
Swindon, Wiltshire
What are your thoughts on this Lens Canon 70-200 F4 L?

Does anyone have one?

is it a nice sharp lens or soft?

also does anyone know if it will work with the x2 teleconvertor?

Thanks for your help.
 
Not personally.

Yes, very sharp. As sharp as the f/2.8, just slower.

Yes, it's compatible with both the 1.4x and 2x converters (although at f/8 max it might not be the best performer, especially in low light).
 
I use a 70-200 f/4L

Excellent lens for the money, good build quality and very sharp - I would recommend this highly.

I've also got a canon 1.4x converter which works well with it.

However with the 2x converter you will lose the ability to autofocus and will have to rely on manual focus.

The only drawback with the f/4 is that you will find yourself in situations where you have to really crank the ISO in poor light/overcast days. Dependant on what body you are intending to use this lens with, you may introduce an amount of noise that may degrade your image's quality.
 
It's brilliantly sharp, as good if not better than its 2.8 counterpart. It's compatible with both converter but you will lose AF with the 2x on a non 1 series camera.
 
I have this lens and love it. Very quick focus and very sharp results. This lens is a keeper for sure.
 
sounds like i might purchase one then.

If only i had the money to buy a 70-200 F2.8 L IS. to be rich :rolleyes:
 
After my Sigma 10-20mm this plans to be my next purchase, it's at a stonkingly nice price, but if you go for the one further up would you go for:

70-200mm L F/4 IS or the F/2.8 non-is?
 
jchiver said:
sounds like i might purchase one then.

If only i had the money to buy a 70-200 F2.8 L IS. to be rich :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I remember feeling like that. :D

If you really want 2.8 i can recommend sigma's equivalent.

I had the 70-200 f/4 before the sigma. it was a good lense but i've found the sigma to be just as well built, just as sharp but faster as you'd expect f/2.8 to be.

I bought both second hand and the upgrade to the sigma cost pretty much nothing due to the weaker resale value of sigma's on the market.

Hope you find your perfect lens. :)

gt
 
RandomTom said:
After my Sigma 10-20mm this plans to be my next purchase, it's at a stonkingly nice price, but if you go for the one further up would you go for:

70-200mm L F/4 IS or the F/2.8 non-is?
Click to expand...

f/2.8 non-IS, personally, but it depends on what you shoot. Do you really need f/2.8 or will IS suffice—that is, do you want the speed to freeze subject motion (in which case you need f/2.8) or hand shake (in which case IS will suffice)?
 
i think without IS.

IS brings the fstop down by up to 2 stops but overall i would prefer the non IS at 2.8.
 
i'd love to upgrade to the 70-200 F/2.8 NON-IS sooner because the f/4 is pretty bad in lowlight and with TC it becomes f/5.6, other then that the 70-200 f/4 is fantastic.
 
iGiDK said:
However with the 2x converter you will lose the ability to autofocus and will have to rely on manual focus.
Click to expand...

That's very strange, i also have this lens, and a 2x TC and my AF is perfectly fine, though my TC is a kenco and not the canon one, wether that is the difference i dunno.
 
wez130 said:
That's very strange, i also have this lens, and a 2x TC and my AF is perfectly fine, though my TC is a kenco and not the canon one, wether that is the difference i dunno.
Click to expand...

I think with the Kenco converters you always get AF, even if you stack them.. With the canon converters i think you can tape up some of the contacts which means you still get AF where you normally wouldn't.
 
i have both the f4 and the f2.8IS, the f2.8 is obviously faster and i would say sharper all round but jeez its heavy all day on a 1d series walkaround.

the f4 with a 2x convertor does loose AF on the non 1d bodies, i have tried it on 20d/30d neither would focus on the 2x convertor (others mileage seems to vary). plus for it is obviously fastest cheap L lens about the only other thing i dislike is its the only L with a 67mm filter thread instead of usual 77mm, something to think on when you buy pro series filters over £100 each.

then again i had a 86mm bigma so fit as well thats a big piece of glass (bigma = sigma 50-500)
 
there are pros and cons to all of them at the end of the day i suppose you just choose the best option to suit your requirements.

I think the 70-200 F4 non IS will be the lens i buy. Its going to be a walk about lens really so i can get those tighter shots when needed i already have a 17-85 IS so it will complement well. The next item i think will be a 10-20.
 
good luck on that its a nice lens & for walkaround its not heavy at all. its actually heavier than a 24-105 F4 but feels lighter as its a better balance on a smaller body.

you wont get disappointed with it.
 
But remember that it's not a straight equivalence, since IS only counteracts camera shake and not subject movement. You might be able to handhold at speeds 4 stops slower than the non-IS, but that doesn't make a difference if your subject's still blurred at those speeds. Obviously the f/2.8 IS is the best of both worlds, but it comes at a price.
 
RandomTom said:
After my Sigma 10-20mm this plans to be my next purchase, it's at a stonkingly nice price, but if you go for the one further up would you go for:

70-200mm L F/4 IS or the F/2.8 non-is?
Click to expand...

the 2.8 is a heavy lens to carry around. I'd prabably go for the f4 IS (i already own the F4 and really like it's portability)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom