about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
380 810444 Sep 24, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $593.78
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
9.36
9.5
ef70_200_4_1_

Specifications:
High-performance, L-series telephoto zoom lens combining light weight and compactness with an f/4 maximum aperture. Inner focusing and the ring USM enable quick and quiet autofocusing. Also, a circular polarizing filter can be attached and used without difficulty because the front lens element does not rotate during focusing. The tripod collar (sold separately) is the same one used with the EF 300mm f/4L USM.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
          
Montrealer
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 146
Review Date: Aug 16, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Incredibly sharp, very smooth, light, excellent colour rendition.
Cons:
I now want the 24-105 L too !

Got this new lens last week. I can't stop shooting ! My first piece of L glass, and I'm not disapointed. Replaces my 75-300 III USM and the 70-200 makes it look like a toy lens by comparison. Really a joy to work with. Can't wait to get the 1,4X to go with it.

Aug 16, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Montrealer to your Buddy List  
marty01_uk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Review Date: Aug 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: light weight great colours very sharp.... and its white..so you get the l glass Status symbol.
Cons:
Only f4

Fantastic lens very sharp loads of contrast just not fast enough
I bought a sigma 70_200 fo less money and get virtually the same result but with the wider apature so its now my back up lens....
Allthough i do like the status....
Its lighter than the sigma so if you're not built like a brick outhouse like me then this lens will be ideal...you won't be dissapointed allthough you will be looking at the canon 70_200 f2.8 is l lens very enviously(like me)....


Aug 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add marty01_uk to your Buddy List  
mkobulni
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 555
Review Date: Aug 8, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $578.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Great Color / Weight (Light) / Fast Focus Speed / Build Quality
Cons:
Not 2.8

I have had this lens for 6 months and I could see the difference between this one and the kit lens right away. The colors were better and bolder. Focusing is very fast. Great for wildlife shots and some sports. I would have loved the 2.8 for the lower light situations. For sports I would recommend a 300mm or 400mm. I took some pictures at a Mets game and could not get close enough for most of the field. I have a 1.6 crop so if you have Full Frame this won't be long enough of a zoom. Of course I was not sitting where the Pro's sit. If you have credentails for sporting events or you can get close, you will have outstanding shots. I have used this for wildlife and it's good. Birds come out great if you are within 20 feet or so. If I had the money I would have gotten the 100-400mm. This lens is great for outdoor portraits of family or friends. If your limited with money and you want telephoto zoom "L" glass, then you should consider this lens.

Aug 8, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mkobulni to your Buddy List  
kent-imagery
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 6, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 7, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp results, almost silent focusing, works well on my 20d, not too heavy.
Cons:
none

So far i have used this lense for scenery shots of mountains and also some wildlife. i am now considering getting a 2X teleconverter but have read many bad reviews about it.

The focusing is teh most admiring thing i found about it with its usm being so quick and silent that the butterfly does not have a chance to fly away before i get a picture of it.

Although not vital if tehre was a image stabilised version of this lens tehn i may be more interested in that but i normally shoot in bright light so i am using shutter speeds of about 1/2000th and normally stick to f4

compared to my 18-55mm the standard lens is put to shame

i recomend this lens is brought used because it does not often suffer from wear because of its build quality, i brought mine used from fordes and i cannot find any signs of use.


Aug 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add kent-imagery to your Buddy List  
nek0
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4
Review Date: Aug 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $570.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Much lighter then the f2.8 IS, AF is very fast & quiet, the build feels very solid, not too big, great walk around lens, very sharp wide open
Cons:
f4 but unless you absolutely need f2.8 who cares?

I've rented few lenses including the 70-200 f2.8 L IS (nice but quite heavy) and the more I used it, the more I fell in love with it.

Until I got this lens I was using 50mm f1.8 MKII which worked far better then the 18-55mm kit lens.

The initial impression of pulling this 70-200mm f4 L lens was WOW. It feels like a solid tank but not heavy. Every part of the lens you grip feels solid although I've been babying it where I put it, how I put it & where I store it!

Since the lens uses 67mm filter, it was easy to find inexpensive UV filter (B+W $50 from B&H Photo). It's definitely a great walk around lens. On a x1.6 crop camera the zoom is very nice although you'll start to get hungry for a wider lens. Perhaps one day I'll own 16-35 L & 24-70 L to go along with this.

As far as the image goes it's sharp. The bokeh looks great, the color looks more vivid before sharpening or doing any PS. It's a night & day coming from a kit lens and will never go back.

I highly recommend this lens. Great lens for the price, can't beat the "L" quality and is far by the best lens I've owned so far. Unless you need the IS for panning and the extra light, it just makes sense to buy this f4 L version. You won't be disappointed Smile


Aug 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add nek0 to your Buddy List  
tuxbailey
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 47
Review Date: Jul 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $560.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: I bought it about three months ago. Amazing lens for the price.
Cons:
None.



Jul 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add tuxbailey to your Buddy List  
sztorok
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 22, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very sharp, rich colours, light, build quality, fast&smooth AF, looks
Cons:
expensive 67mm filters and tripod ring

The two things that made me fall in love with this lens is the sharpness and the colours. Awesome.
Just get a good tripod and enjoy the amazing photographs from it.
I don't really need f/2.8 in this focal range, but IS would be great for handhelds.
I found the tripod ring to be really nice, but on a sunny day you can handhold it even with the x1.4-tc on.
I like how it can go to f/32 or f/45 (with the converter).
This lens is great in all the relevant aspects. I would buy it again - even if the other two similar offering from canon would sell at the same price - because of the weight & size.

The reach on a 20d and with the x1.4 TC is more than enough for me and when I move to full frame I think I will keep a 1.6x crop camera just for this lens.


Jul 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sztorok to your Buddy List  
I Simonius
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 51
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Light wheight VERY sharp at the long end (where it matters)
Cons:
No IS, needs a bright day to be usable, needs a VERY bright day to use with Ext 1.4x or 2x or a polariser

I have researched comparisons with other lenses of similar FLs and it is doubtful whether ANY lens of similar FLs is sharper. In practice it is as sharp as you could possibly ever want.

That is the most positive thing about this lens , it is very sharp (i.e. excellent resolution)

The second positive thing is that it is very light, so can be carried round anywhere. This I suggest, is it's only real advantage over the 70-200 f2.8, which is reputed to be just as sharp ( as near as makes no difference).

That's the pro's, the cons are: even @ f4 it is a bit slow for a 200mm lens, in fact too slow to hand hold in anything but good light, Only clear sky in broad daylight is good enough to use with an extender or polariser. It is just bearable on a FF camera but on a 1.6 crop camera it is clear that the shutter speed needs to be high ( in theory 320th sec. minimum, and I'd agree in practice it needs that.)

I find in practice a rarely use it at anything but in the 135-200 range usually @ 200mm 90% of the time. The 85 1.8 is much more useable than the zoom @ the shorter FLs

reasonably priced


Jul 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add I Simonius to your Buddy List  
Ryan S
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 9
Review Date: Jul 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $584.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build Quality, Fast, Sharp, Great Colors, Silent AF!
Cons:
None significant

Very nice, affordable L-lens. A pleasure to shoot with. Great IQ and very sharp at all apertures.

Jul 26, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Ryan S to your Buddy List  
Ron Fischer
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $589.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Light weight, good balance, tac sharp, and quick focusing
Cons:
None

I have had this lens about 3 weeks, and it is the first L lens I have used. To say that it makes the other lenses I have owned, several Sigma lenses and the Canon "kit lens" that came with my 350D, look like kids toys would not be an understatement. This lens is incredibly sharp and fast focusing (even in low light conditions). I used it this past weekend at an air show, and you can see some samples of what this lens can do at:

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=125176

I highly recommend this lens. For the price, it can't be beat!!


Jul 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Ron Fischer to your Buddy List  
Electric97
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 63
Review Date: Jul 23, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $660.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, quick AF great focal range.
Cons:
none

For the money I don't think this lens can be beat. IMO by far the best value in the "L" lineup. It was my first "L" piece of glass, and I quickly got rid of my 17-85 efs to pick up a 17-40 f/4L.

Truely an excelent lens for a great price!


Jul 23, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Electric97 to your Buddy List  
ray_lam5
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
Review Date: Jul 22, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Light, good contrast, nice brokeh and amazing usm
Cons:
cheapo lens hood,

I had been waiting a while before purchasing this lens. Its light with very quick focusing and sharp.

Jul 22, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ray_lam5 to your Buddy List  
bonera
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 25, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $584.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very sharp even wide open, relatively light, not a burden to carry for long periods of time, solid built, high quality, focuses very fast, very quietly and very accurately, bokeh, contrast and color, price.
Cons:
none

My first "L" canon lens! I love it. It is perfect for me.

Jul 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add bonera to your Buddy List  
Christopher-J
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 320
Review Date: Jul 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $578.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Tack sharp IQ! One size, doesn't extend outward! Light weight and easy to use.
Cons:
It's white! The hood is somewhat ugly and cheap.

I bought this lens as a replacement for my 75-300mm IS lens. I canned that lens because it wasnt sharp. Even the loss of 100mm with the 70-200 f4L was well worth it. Its so sharp that I can crop better then ever before. I like everything about this lens except the color and the monster sized hood.

Jul 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Christopher-J to your Buddy List  
borderlight
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1745
Review Date: Jul 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Right size & weight, IF, fast AF, great color/sharpness
Cons:
Hood is rather large.

I once owned the 70-200 f2.8L so I figured that if one stop was the only difference I knew quality wouldn't be an issue. The f4L version is a joy to pick up and use without all the size and weight associated with the f2.8, something that gets to be a drag carrying all day. Beyond that it had to fit in my small Domke bag (it does), and it had to be easy to hand-hold (it is).

The white color is not really as noticable as I thought because my hand cradles under a major portion of the white base. As for potential low light problems with an f4 lens, I don't rule out going to ISO 800, or using a tripod/monopod. The f2.8L is not going to help you indoors anyway, and the f2.8 IS version is very big and heavy. I am trying to keep the camera bag under 7 pounds. I bought the f4L mainly for outside shoots, and studio strobes. I have an 85 f1.8 and a 17-55 f2.8 IS for the low light stuff.

With the inclusion of a hood, rebate, and the fact that I owned a lot of 67mm filters from my Mamiya 6 days, I saved over $100 over the 70-300 IS version, a lens I was also considering. This is a great lens to own.


Jul 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add borderlight to your Buddy List  
vin14
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 28, 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 256
Review Date: Jul 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: weight, price, AF
Cons:
it's white, it takes 67mm filters, hood is huge

This lens replaced my Nikon 80-200f2.8 when I switched to Canon. I bought it because I felt it's lighter weight and lower price was worth loosing a stop for. It produces very good images, perhaps I would say excellent if I hadn't previously owned the 80-200. Despite that, I still feel it has been an acceptable compromise.


Jul 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add vin14 to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
380 810444 Sep 24, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $593.78
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
9.36
9.5
ef70_200_4_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next