 |
|
|
bollywood1970
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Almost every shot is a keeper, unlike the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM which I got rid of. The lens is simply fast, sharp and provides contrast. I am definately sold on the L series lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
The lens bulkyness especially with the hood on.
|
|
|
|
|
 Jul 9, 2006
|
|
dasselbergs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 9, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Finally. My first "L". Let me compare it with my EF 100mm F/2.0. That's a very sharp lens with incredible bokeh en DoF possibilities. This is even sharper and the build quality is a bit better.
However... After having shot a couple of hundred of photo's, something strange happened. I sat in the sun for a while, took some shots and rested the camera + lens against my leg. Some 2 minutes later I raised the camera, picked a subject and -wanted- to zoom in... I turned the zoomring, but nothing happened?! It completely lost drive. I turned the lens to look into the front side and the sound of rolling bits and pieces reached my ears. Nice...for a 2 week-old lens.
I returned it to my dealer yesterday and he kindly gave me a new one right away. I'll ask him what the problem was. If he ever hears back from Canon.
I was oh-so-glad that I went for a new one (600 euro's) in stead of a second hand one (580 euro's)...
My first shots with this lens:
http://www.dennisasselbergs.com/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=2
|
|
|
Jul 4, 2006
|
|
Glassbottle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 567
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrasty, colourful, brilliant on full-frame (5D), lightweight, fast accurate focus
|
|
Cons:
|
None, other than f/4, but we knew that
|
|
|
I previously left a rather lukewarm review of this lens. I was feeling a bit cheated that the famous L quality was not quite as marvellously better than ordinary lenses as I'd been led to believe.
That was true on a 1.6x crop camera.
But now I have a 5D and the true quality of this lens has become strikingly evident. Where other lenses go blurry at the borders or have their lack of resolution revealed by the 5D's big sensor, the 70-200 f/4 L just gets better and better.
It's comparable in sharpness to the 50mm/f1.4, and probably better in colour rendition and contrast.
Interestingly, my f/4L version is appreciably sharper at all f-stops than an acquaintance's Holy Grail, the f/2.8L IS. That fact just underscores what excellent value this lens truly is.
If I could I would withdraw my previous score of 8 and replace it with a 10, thanks to the lens's stellar performance on a 5D.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2006
|
|
Allen Ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent picture and build quality, light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 may not be sufficient for low light indoor
|
|
|
Excellent lens for outdoor use and travel. Very sharp, nice contrast and rich color for $580. What else can you ask for? For indoor and low light the f2.8 IS will be better if you don't mind the weight (and price). According to Phtozone, the F4 has slightly better resolution that the f2.8 and f2.8 IS on the bench. I like light kit for travel so I did not buy the f2.8 version.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2006
|
|
Yanber
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything about it is perfect
|
|
Cons:
|
Don't see any reproach to do
|
|
|
Excellent quality / price ratio, and light enough to be used almost in all situations. I hesitated with the 2.8, but the price and the weight of this one made my choice.
There's nothing better than an "L" serie, this one has all the positives aspects of an "L" serie with an accessible price.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2006
|
|
rthrbfshn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 39
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, great pictures, mine works fine with 1.4 TC
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Great lens for the money. I liked this lens so much I am upgrading to the f2.8. Only weakness is low light shooting.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006
|
|
ottsmart
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Never lets you down
|
|
Cons:
|
tripod mount
|
|
|
Will give you what it says. No disappointments.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006
|
|
el-richie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 20, 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $725.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, performance, price. Really fast focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
no is O:-)
|
|
|
This is my first L series and I'm amazed. I think it's perfect (for the price). Very sharp photos, superb colors and very fast focus.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2006
|
|
dyane
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 1, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light to carry, sharp, good colour
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I agonized over which zoom lens to buy between the 100-300 is and the 70-200 f4 was my final choice after trying it out on my 30D in the shop. I wanted the 70-200 f.28 is but it was a tad heavy for my hand as a carry around. I don't regret the choice while IS would have been good to have I am finding I can hold the camera steady enough without it. I went for the 1.4 extender because the 2x doesn't have auto focus ability and for wildlife I want fast shooting.
For me its a good choice and I am very pleased with the sharp shots and colour the weight is good enough to carry around and its built very sturdy.
I highly recommend this lens and I wanted to thank everyone who has posted previously it really did help me in my decision.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2006
|
|
Pow Wow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, good contrast, pleasing color, solid build, reliable auto-focus, light-weight, affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
none at all.
|
|
|
I love this lens.
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2006
|
|
Nickerjo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 133
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $544.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything - but i'm a hobbiest trying to learn the ropes.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nada - as of the first day
|
|
|
I read all of the reviews on various sites and also have a colleague who is quite knowledgeable. I had purchased my D30 about a week ago and was not very pleased with the kit lens. Although after some research and figuring out where it's "sweet spots" were (mm/f combos) I had a number of great PICS. The person mentioned above suggested the 55mm 1.8. I bought the model II immediatley and thought I had something great.
Waiting for my 70-200 to arrive I was quite paranoid RE: the back focus postings I had reviewed.
By the time I got to the new lens it was almost dark, so I tried some shots and really could not fairly judge the lens or focus.
The next day when the sun came out I did a quick 15 min tour of my yard with the lens in Ap P. I could not take a bad
picture.
I just "paid my dues" for pic uploads so I can't send any examples now. Tomorrow I will send one of the first four to hit the card - It is great.
My research made me curious. I chose the F4 version more on weight than $$. The IS might be great, but it seems that the
extra size and weight would balance out with the F4 if hand-held.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2006
|
|
TomWilko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 153
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
- The quality, simply fantastic
- Zoom is so so fast, quiet and accurate
- Great outdoor and on the move lens
|
|
Cons:
|
None, simple as. For the price you pay you get great value here.
|
|
This was my first medium to long range telephoto and I am so pleased I went with this as a choice. First of all to those who argue they need F/2.8...before discounting this lens really consider what you use your gear for? I weighed up either this or the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 simply because I occasionally wanted to do something night shooting.
The night or low light shooting has never materialised as I don't have an urge to do it. However my Motorsport shooting has increased exponentially and I feel very lucky to have this lens by my side to help capture the images.
You can't pick this lens up and it will give you a great photo, thats not what DSLR's and this type of equipment is about. However with this lens it enables you to learn and removes the issue of equipment being the limiting factor.
Buy this lens if you do a lot of walking in your type of photography and need something that will not be obtrusive and weight you down over the course of the day. 200mm is a little short for some Motorsport but I will never sell this lens as it has far to many uses.
My site www.meangasoline.co.uk is documented using this lens for nearly all the photos.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2006
|
|
smudgey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 9, 2006
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
After Tokina put themselves out of the contest, by not making their 80-200 mm ATX PRO any more, I bought the 4L. I'm astounded by the accuracy and sharpness. The pictures I took with my kit lens (35-80 mm Canon) look as if they've been printed on "draft" quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish for the price they tossed in a tripod collar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 4, 2006
|
|
isogood
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 405
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
natural colors, sharpness, built quality, optics, price, range, and i forgot some...
|
|
Cons:
|
not any for this price
|
|
i am using this lens since one year, on my 20D, and it is always a great pleasure.
I shot most often sports outside, like golf, and portraits, most of pictures are keepers, and the range with the 20D is perfect for this use.
I add sometimes a 1,4X Canon teleconverter, with great results.
I have also a Canon 400 L5.6, more useful when far away from players, but the picture quality of 70-200 L4 seems a little better
Like other users, I recommend it for outside sports, it's the best zoom lens at this price, certain.
you can see a gallery here with some samples :
http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_70_200_l4&page=all
http://www.onedayoneshot.com
Patrick
|
|
|
May 3, 2006
|
|
sangredetigre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 1, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light & eminently portable, sharp, good colour reproduction, fast focusing, good contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006
|
|
Glassbottle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 567
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Damn good lens, cheap for what it is.
|
|
Cons:
|
Will not bring about world peace.
|
|
|
Make no mistake, this is a very good lens. Everything they say is true: it's sharp, contrasty and well-built; it transmits nice colour; it focuses fast and accurately; it's fairly light and it handles well. It is much better than my flaky old non-L EF 100-300mm f/5.6, which it replaces. Yet it is not the cure for the common cold.
This is my first foray into the deep and dangerous world of L lenses and I must say that (unlike most people, it seems) I'm not completely blown away.
Perhaps my expectations were too high, given the breathless excitement of most reviews and the abundance of flattering sample pictures. Or perhaps I have buyer's remorse.
But I'd like to sound a gentle warning to others who may imagine than possessing an L lens will give them supernatural powers.
This lens is not as sharp as a cheap prime like the 50mm/1.8, all the hype notwithstanding. Close, but not quite. (Of course, the bokeh is better.) And it is not *that* much better than a decent consumer zoom such as the 28-105mm/3.5-4.5 USM. The improvement seen in A4-size prints isn't vast, although pixel-peeping does show it up, and colours are probably better. But old-fashioned considerations like lighting and technique make more of a difference.
These things are, of course, difficult to quantify. On the whole I'm very pleased to have the 70-200mm/4, and I'd buy it again. But I think it's worth injecting a spoilsport dose of L-scepticism into the general rapture.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
379
|
786478
|
Apr 12, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
93% of reviewers
|
$593.78
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.64
|
9.36
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
