Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

SkidMarkKing · 7 Feb 2013 at 21:41

Hello. Ive been looking around for a motorsport lens. Ive just noticed a "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM" for £429.99 brand-new. I have a Canon 400D Gripped, 18-55mm kit lens, charger, batteries to sell and some bike parts (I used to ride trials). Im thinking of saving up for the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM" and then possibly a 1.4 extender. I wouldnt mainly be using it for motorsport. I know it isn't the IS version but I have seen a few review videos and it seems to be a good lens and worth the money. I have looked at the IS versions and they seem to be around £1000 more which for me as a hobbyist is a bit too steep.

londonbairn · 7 Feb 2013 at 21:51

Its one of the best first L lens to own and known for its amazing sharpness. Not sure how well it takes a tc though.

SkidMarkKing · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:00

londonbairn said:
Its one of the best first L lens to own and known for its amazing sharpness. Not sure how well it takes a tc though.

Ok, thank you. Im just abit curious because im currently using a 55-250mm canon lens and im told this is one of the best budget lenses. Im aware the 70-200mm F/4 at £430 doesn't have IS. Is it such a big deal that it doesn't?

The_Abyss · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:12

Awesome lens, but I found it was next to average with an extender. On a crop body though I think you may not need it - it is so sharp. IS is not such a big deal at all.

A couple from me:

IMG_5374 by Greg Kingston, on Flickr

IMG_1485 by Greg Kingston, on Flickr

londonbairn · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:13

I assume you'd be panning so IS not essential and if you are doing a front on shot given it will likely be day light I am sure you will be 1/1000 or thereabouts.

SkidMarkKing · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:14

The_Abyss said:
Awesome lens, but I found it was next to average with an extender. On a crop body though I think you may not need it - it is so sharp. IS is not such a big deal at all.

Ahh, so not so great with an extender? When I manage to shift my 400D/18-55mm lens ile treat myself to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM.

EDIT:I was originally looking at the sigma 120-400 for £550. Also the 150-500 sigma

londonbairn · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:16

Good thing as well it does not depreciate much as it is so popular. Was my first white lens a few years ago think I paid £350 just before everything shot up and sold it for same price

theheyes · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:23

It's a great lens. I've used one trackside before and although 200m can be a bit short it still does a job. YMMV of course.

SkidMarkKing · 7 Feb 2013 at 22:47

theheyes said:
It's a great lens. I've used one trackside before and although 200m can be a bit short it still does a job. YMMV of course.

Yeah. The thing is I have a 55-250mm canon lens though so I might be better of going with a longer sigma.

On a review someone said its ok as a walk about lens. If the 70-200mm L USM lens is ok with a 1.4 or even 2.0x extender I would get one but im not too sure.

ianh · 7 Feb 2013 at 23:06

I borrowed a Mk1 2x Extender for my 70-200 F4 (no IS) just to see how bad the image quality drop off was as my F4 is very sharp normally (easily my sharpest lens). The Mk1 isn't the greatest by a long way and the images were softened past what I would be happy with. However the new Mk3 versions are known to be much better quality so, undeterred by the Mk1 results, I'll be testing a Mk3 this weekend and I'll post my thoughts here.

iamtheoneneo · 8 Feb 2013 at 09:56

f4 is nice, prefer the is version myself for distance shooting but all depends on your budget. Im currently trying to off my f4 IS for a 2.8 IS as iv decided I just need that lens ( I dont really)

Phal · 8 Feb 2013 at 10:00

I bought an F4L version too as it was cheap. It's definitely sharp but a 2.8L IS mk2 would definitely be nicer

Intend to buy one at some point and sell the F4L

londonbairn · 8 Feb 2013 at 11:58

The f2.8 IS II is a pretty steep jump price wise but it's an incredible lenses. A zoom which is pin sharp throughout the range and wide open.

Ksanti · 8 Feb 2013 at 13:14

The 70-200 f/4s are just as sharp. The only one that isn't as sharp is the 70-200 2.8 IS I and I think the non IS 70-200 2.8. Plus on a 400D it will be horribly unbalanced.

Amp34 · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:05

Phal said:
I bought an F4L version too as it was cheap. It's definitely sharp but a 2.8L IS mk2 would definitely be nicer Intend to buy one at some point and sell the F4L

The f/2.8 is also significantly heavier. Something to think about if you carry your lens around a lot (obviously studio and events not so much of an issue).

I had the f/4 non IS and it was a great lens, let down only by its lack of reach (for wildlife) and lack of IS. I would recommend buying used for around £350 for the non IS and around £600-700 for the IS version. The savings are pretty good and the lens is basically bulletproof so no real issues with reliability.

SkidMarkKing · 9 Feb 2013 at 15:25

Ksanti said:
The 70-200 f/4s are just as sharp. The only one that isn't as sharp is the 70-200 2.8 IS I and I think the non IS 70-200 2.8. Plus on a 400D it will be horribly unbalanced.

I have a 60D now bud. Still un-decided. To be honest I think I need that extra reach. I only photograph motorsports at Oulton Park at the moment but I can see myself travelling to other tracks one day and I will need the extra reach. The 150-500mm sigma is out of the quest now because its not so good in low light. 120-400 sigma still looks a good lens though.