Please post your hands-on experiences with the recently-released Canon EF 70-200/4 L IS lens here. Now that the lens is shipping, I figure it's a good time to start a hands-on thread to compile relevant information in one place.
Please folks, try to keep this thread on topic and the idle 'chatter' to a minimum, so that the thread can hopefully become a valuable resource for those looking for real-world info on this new lens, provided by those that actually own it. Feel free to provide image examples, 100% crops, and any relevant details about the lens, especially in relation to the either the EF 70-200/4 L and EF 70-200/2.8 L IS.
I am not sure why the previous thread was locked. Nonetheless, I will say that mine shipped today and I paid 1145 at prophotosupply.com in Oregon. I still have my regular 70-200/4 and a 70-200/ 2.8 L IS and will do some comparisons when i get mine early next week.
I realized after sticking that one that there was no way for me to control whether it got deleted or not without it being a thread that I started.
Sorry for the inconvenience, but carry on...
Jeff
FM.com Moderator
PS: And by the way Mark, we'd love to see some controlled tests with all three, I would doubt many people own them all.
jonbrach wrote:
This morning my new lens arrived from B&H...a few quick observations:
if you owned the original 70-200 4.0 as i did this lens looks exactly the same ,the only difference being the IS switches on the lens.
i took several shots of pretty mundane subjects to get a sense and feel of the new lens..first off the AF is lightning fast as was the older version...the IS functions smoothly and seems to work in excellent fashion as several of my shots were at shutter speeds below 25 at 200mm which was pretty much impossible without IS...the results of my limited testing tells me that if you liked the pre IS version(which i did) then you will love this lens...all of the same positives exist with the added bonus of IS..i sold my top notch copy of the older version a couple of months ago anticipating my purchase of the new lens.i am happy i did so...the only downside i can imagine is price and the truth is you do get what you pay for...so far,so good....i will report further if i notice anything dramatically different. ...Show more →
sandycrane wrote:
Here's a couple of full size images from the 70-200 f4 IS that I took today of the house next door. First two images from the lens. These were shot at 70 and 200 at f4 and are straight out of the camera.
The IS is a great improvement over that of my 300mm f4.
By the way, the picture of the little dog is from that 300mm with a Kenko 2x TC.
I look foreward to seeing other people's photos and comments concerning this impressive little lens.
A quick note about the IS...
On my 300 f4 the image in the viewfinder seemed to float. On the 70-200 the image seems to "lock in" and will make a shift when the image leaves its correction range. Shots at 1/60 at 200mm seem easy and inspire confidence.
Sandy.
sandycrane wrote:
A quick note about the IS...
On my 300 f4 the image in the viewfinder seemed to float. On the 70-200 the image seems to "lock in" and will make a shift when the image leaves its correction range. Shots at 1/60 at 200mm seem easy and inspire confidence.
Sandy.
I said it in the other thread, but it was locked (I was wondering whether it would become the "sticky thread", but apparently this one was created at this time, and the other one locked, so I repost):
I would be very interested in info about the IS and comparisons with the 70-200/2.8 IS. Not only these lenses have the same focal length, but also the is of the f/4 is supposed to give 4 stops instead of 3. In some sense, I would expect the f/4 to allow the same shutter speeds as the f/2.8 with both lenses at max aperture (but of course, with a differnece in Depth of Field, since the f/4 is f/4 and the f/2.8 is f/2.8 ).
Xavier,
The lens is new to me so I am hesitant to make any sweeping judgements. I took a couple of shots of my dogs yesterday indoors at 200mm and 1/20 and the results were acceptable but not great. This morning I had one at 1/30 at 170mm and it was really sharp.
I have never shot the 70-200 f2.8 IS so I can't comment on your idea. I do know that it will expand the potential of the origional f4.
I have not yet seen the high contrast and color saturation that I get from my origional f4, but I haven't taken a lot of photos under different conditions and subjects.
Sandy.
Sharp images at 170mm and 1/30 is pretty good. I think the 4 stop issue is going to be very operator dependant. Nonetheless, in my experience based purely on optics, the 70-200/4 and 2.8L IS are similar. So in my mind if the f4 IS is equivalent in the optics department, I will be pleased. I had owned the 70-300DO for some time and while it was decent, it was not as good as the 70-200 but as a travel lens with IS it was preferred. Now the 70-200/4 L IS will be my choice. Mark sandycrane wrote:
Xavier,
The lens is new to me so I am hesitant to make any sweeping judgements. I took a couple of shots of my dogs yesterday indoors at 200mm and 1/20 and the results were acceptable but not great. This morning I had one at 1/30 at 170mm and it was really sharp.
I have never shot the 70-200 f2.8 IS so I can't comment on your idea. I do know that it will expand the potential of the origional f4.
I have not yet seen the high contrast and color saturation that I get from my origional f4, but I haven't taken a lot of photos under different conditions and subjects.
Sandy....Show more →
Canon's claim of "up to four stops" may be a more liberal interpretation of their tests results, brought on by competition from the new bodies with in-camera IS . If they have come up with new IS, wouldn't they be calling it "third generation"? Anyway, three of four stops - whatever - the IS is very useful.
If this lens is as good as the older non-IS version when both are on a tripod, I'm getting one. I find that my non-IS 70-200/4 is a noticeably better lens than my 24-105/4, so I'm not giving it up without seeing some direct comparisons between the two 70-200/4 versions. The MTF charts show the new version is better at the edges.
Ths IS sound is very noticeable. I can hear it switch on and off. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing - I'm hoping not. It's 87 miles back to the camera store.
That said, I have both the IS and non-IS versions right now (non-IS going back to Amazon Monday) and there is no real difference between the two IQ-wise. I'm a little worried about the IS sound - I've got the 24-105 and it makes no noise - but once that's cleared up, I will be happy. Very happy.
If this is the same IS that is in the 70-300 DO (third generation), and I think it is, it does make those sounds. I have always noticed the sound of the movement and the off and on clicking. So, my guess is that it is normal and not to worry.
Gil
Cool, cool. Like I said, the 24-105 makes no sound, but it's not 3rd Gen IS, either.
Couple other things: still as light as the non-IS. Switches,even tho they look like add-ons in the photos of the lens, are nice and solid. It's really what you would expect from an L lens.
Hopefully, I'll run some shots through C1 tonite and have a better idea of IQ. I bought the non-IS version just a couple weeks ago after talking myself out of spending the money. The shots from that lens were in-freakin-credible. So once I talked to the shop that had them, I was thinking I was nuts to play around with that IQ. But I love the IS on my other lens so much and then I got some extra $, I figured, what the heck!
More samples please, I'm very curious how it handles low light situations comparied to the f /2.8. The 70-200L f/4 IS may be the long travel lense that I've put off getting for too long and it would fit my new smaller travel kit.
If the 70-200f4IS works better in AF than the other f4 lenses unde low light, I am getting one. I love my f4 lenses (e.g. 300f4IS, 70-200f4, 24-105f4IS, etc.) with decent light, but I don't have good experience with them under low light, when the f2.8 or faster lenses really shine on my 1 series bodies.
Right slau, it would be VERY interesting if someone with both lenses could compare handheld AF performance in very low light. Never really thought of that IS can help AF (maybe its more noticeable with slower AF systems on lower level cameras?).
Would be especially interested in seeing comparisons at f/4. In my experience the 70-200/2.8 IS need to be stopped down 2/3 of a stop for critical sharpness. If the new 70-200/4IS behaves identical it would be too slow for my taste.
If the f/4 performance will be identical to the non IS version then this will be my next lens.
I've added two shots from about 8 feet also 70 and 200 at f4. Sorry about the glare from the flash, but I think it gives an indication of the lens' resolution and contrast. Again the photos are straight from the camera and autofocused.
).