 |
|
|
Ernnez
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $575.00
|
|
Pros:
|
L, size, built,
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS
|
|
|
Great travel lens
|
|
 Apr 24, 2006
|
|
riversen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build quality, very sharp, quiet and quick focus, and absolutely incredible price...
|
|
Cons:
|
For what I paid for an "L" quality piece of glass... none!
|
|
|
I am learning so much and it sure helps that I have a fine piece of glass. All I can say is wow! If you deciding between the 70-300mm IS USM or this one, ask yourself if you really need the 300mm with IS right away. If you can live without the IS (do you do most of your photography outdoors or in well lit areas?), get this one. You can buy the extender X1.4 to get to 280 reach which is wonderful!!!
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2006
|
|
powerear
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp overall at f4, light, almost perfect build, colors, USM
|
|
Cons:
|
none, maybe a better integrated hood like at the 300/4l
|
|
|
I used the lens with the 30D and the 17-40L, which makes a very nice and carryable combo. First I though about the Sigma 100-300 but I had problems with Sigma lenses in the past. My Canon were always perfect after years of use. And 300 may be a bit to long without IS. I bought the 70-200L and I very pleased with it.
The lens is very sharp in the corners at f4 and gets only a very small bit better at 5.6. If you keep the DOF in mind the lens is always useable at f4. Very nice boket. Very fast focus.
I used to have a 300L4, which was not much better in sharpness in the field. I sold it because for my use it was to long at a crop camera.
Build quality is perfect. Dust proofing would be nice. It´s light enough to carry always with you. That the most important thing in my opinion. The 300L4 has always been a bit to heavy, this one is nice. It´s small enough to fit in the pocket of my outdoor jacket.
Think that over when you compare with the 2.8. Keep in mind that the DOF get´s very small with 2.8 on low distances what meens you have to step down. I shot some photos in the zoo from a distance of 2m and the DOF was not more that 5 cm at f4.
IS would be nice but I use a monopod.
Price is good, but relatively more expensive in europe than in the USA. The 2.8IS is much to pricey in comparison.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2006
|
|
GMosher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 48
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
WOW! FAST near-silent AF, great build quality. PRICE!
|
|
Cons:
|
No tripod collar:(
|
|
 Nothin but smiles!
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2006
|
|
bigbossbmb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 138
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $545.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, quick AF, nearly silent, great images, price, build quality...
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 (but can't expect 2.8 at this price), beware: causes L fever
|
|
don't hesitate if you can't afford a 70-200f2.8 then you should probably get this lens!
I bought this when I ordered my 30D...incredible combo
I know have 'L' fever 
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2006
|
|
ga1lyons
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 299
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $519.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, clear, "L" glass, price point on quality, the white makes everyone think i have purpose in life, and am there for a reason and not just some dork with a camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
not 2.8, not IS, doesnt make my breakfast
|
|
|
You know, i'd like to own a 2.8L IS version, but i cant afford it and if you are reading these reviews you likely cant either. So i'll tell you what you want to know. The answer is yes, since you cant afford a 2.8L IS, you want this lens. If you need a good quality lens to fill the 70-200 range and not give your first born, this is it. Lens is responsive, clear and sharp. A friend and i compared them (his is a 2.8L non-IS) and the difference tween ours were slight. Is it a perfect lens? no, none is, is this the best lens you'll ever get for this money? It is for me.
Happy shooting.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2006
|
|
Radu Gulie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor sharp, very light comparing to 2.8 (IS) version, great contrast, overall an L lens...
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far, and I've been using it for about a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2006
|
|
njandl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 216
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $525.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, build, AF, color and contrast, size. Absolutely everything you could want in a 70-200 f/4 lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
As many have said, white lens = attention. Would love IS...but then sales of the f/2.8 IS would go WAY down ;)
|
|
|
My first L, and a true revelation. Phenomenal sharpness and color when I first tried it using film; equally great results now on my 20D. Light, great build and balance, and f/4 has been much less of a limiter than I thought. You still get great bokeh, and low-light is not nearly as much of an issue with digital. Would be untouchable if it had IS, but that might take away its best-L-glass-for-the-money status. Regardless, this is a truly great lens.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2006
|
|
GabrieleNisi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Colori, Nitidezza, Prezzo, leggerezza, AF (Colors, sharpness, low price, weith, AF)
|
|
Cons:
|
Nessuno (none)
|
|
|
Questa è stata la mia prima lente che ho comprato con la mia prima Canon, la 20D. In attesa che mi arrivasse il 17-40, sono stato un paio di settimane a divertirmi con la 20D ed il solo 70-200/4L.
Che dire: è stato amore a prima vista.
Una lente stupenda, nitida, ottima per i ritratti rubati,con un AF molto veloce e silenzioso. COlori stupendi e buon contrasto. Questa lente è ottimizzata per 200mm dove dà il meglio di sé, ma è ottima anche su tutta la lunghezza focale ed a tutte le aperture dalla massima f/4 fino a f/16.
E' una lente dalla quale non sono mai riuscito a separarmi, nonostante abbia poi acquistato anche il 100-400 IS L.
Il 70-200/4L è una comoda lente anche per viaggiare leggeri e si bilancia bene anche sol corpo più piccolo della 350D.
Una lente da 10 e lode !!!!!!!
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2006
|
|
gliphix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2006
|
|
teryValencia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 120
|
|
Review Date: Mar 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp , fast , colors , build
|
|
Cons:
|
price of the 67 mm filter
|
|
I bought this lens from a FMer and went out for a testing session during a U9 soccer match.
I was not disappointed at all. AF is really fast and colors are great. Pictures produced are tack sharp. The only i could say is that USM AF motor is so silent that you almost dont know if you have focused or not ... 
really , this is a must-buy if the range is ok for you.
tery
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2006
|
|
Cynewulf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, lightweight considering the quality glass
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod collar is expensive and should be included, not particularly attractive hood
|
|
|
Sharp and very usable hand held with a reasonable amount of light due to its relatively light weight. Still feels very sturdy though.
Great lens!
Tripod collar should be included with the lens.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2006
|
|
misanthropic a
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 447
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good reach with a 1.6x, deathly quite, tack sharp, solid as a tank. The colors and contrast are spectacular.
|
|
Cons:
|
none.
|
|
|
This is by far my most used lens', its great for portraits, great for sports, pretty much anything. The action and feel of it are silky smooth, and the AF is super fast and quiet. Definetly a super bargain lens, that does a better job than many far more expensive ones.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2006
|
|
tellingthm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 334
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build, af speed, amazing color and sharpness, surprisingly lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
i purchased this lens on FM a couple of months ago, and it is quite simply stunning. the build is superb and the af is lightning fast. in my opinion, this lens looks heavier than it is- this doesn't necessarily mean that it's lightweight, but it's much easier to hold and carry than i imagined it to be. i've been able to get sharp shots at 200mm, f/4, 1/40 on my 20d!
i'd say it's the best value in the L lineup, but i don't shoot tele enough to like it more than my 17-40.
of course it's not f/2.8, but that keeps the price/weight down, so i can't fault it for that. if i shot indoors a lot then i'd rather have the 2.8 IS, but i only really use this lens outdoors during the daytime, so the "slow" speed hasn't been a problem.
it looks good, it feels great, and it produces absolutely amazing color & sharpness. i love this lens!
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2006
|
|
rouseyfire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Hi. This is my first post. Not sure if this is the right forum. Just purchased a Canon 20D and then a 28-135IS which is great, especially when compared to the photos taken with my old point and shoot.
As with most of my hobbies, I get the urge to get better stuff...so I am waiting to get a 17-40 L f4.0 and 70-200 L f4.0 lens. They both should arrive this Friday. Two questions: Should I keep the 28-135? If I sell on ebay I could get maybe $300-350 (its less than a month old) Not sure if your that price it would not be better to keep it, although I'm not sure how much use I would get out of it.
I couldn't make up my mind between the 70-200 F2.8 or F4.0 until I looked at several web sites which had photos posted using the F2.8. What I found was that most of the postings using the F2.8 were taken at f4.0 or slower. If you're going to shoot most of time at F4.0 or slower, what's the benefit of paying twice the amount for the F2.8?
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 8, 2006
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 380
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
insanely sharp, best L value
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
i have other good glass, like the 50/1.4, the 85/1.8, the 100/2.8, and the 17-40, but this lens at f5.6 is unmatched in color and sharpness.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
379
|
786805
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
