 |
|
|
LanceUSA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, sharp, sharp. High quality images. L glass! Price. No telescoping (see below). Allows for close proximity to subject when set.
|
|
Cons:
|
Its longer and heavier than I originally imagined. Its quite intimidating...has a very professional look to it (I like to be low key).
|
|
I registered today because I read reviews here all the time and I thought I'd contribute my experience as well.
I just bought this lens yesterday for my Canon 20D and I was blown away by the sharpness of the photos. You'll find that in low lighting conditions it won't perform as expected but thats what ISO boosting is for. I took hand held photos at ISO 1600 indoors that looked great. I find its as sharp as my 50mm prime lens but with the added benefit of me not having to stand 3 feet away to fill the frame...and thats very helpful when you have a kid with sticky fingers coming at you!
If you're considering this lens its the best I've seen in this price and focal range. One other thing I really liked was it doesn't telescope out when adjusting focal lengths...it does it all internally. I also like that you can be 1.3 meters (there is a switch to toggle minimum focusing distance) away from your subject when shooting which makes for nice looking macro shots. This was a surprise to me since I didn't know the lens could do that. Note that the focusing speed severely decreases in this situation, but I don't think shots of flowers demands a very fast focus speed  .
Build quality is the highest of any lens I've ever held or used. Motor is near silent.
|
|
 Mar 7, 2006
|
|
kanadianiceman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 27, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 452
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing quality for the price, extremely smaller and lighter than the 2.8 version, background blur at f4 is stellar, very light, easy to use, somewhat compact size. super quiet and fast zooming.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not 300mm (so i just get closer to the action), Lens hood is MASSIVE, but makes lens look monsterish
|
|
|
Was renting a 2.8L for 3-4 weeks but got to me that i needed to buy a lens.
Using this lens for dirtbike photographer and have not one regret other than it not being longer, BUT, i just get closer to the action and really start to love photography.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2006
|
|
JanPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Mar 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Absolutely Sharp and Color Corrected lens..... Good companion on Photo-trips where weight is the issue.... I love this lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nada...Zero...Nothing !
|
|
|
I have purchased this lens before my departure to Europe just Blind-Eye virtually all based on recommendation of my friend fellow photographer and of course name Canon I trust... Good news is that this little beast did NOT put me down ! That's all folks!
|
|
|
Mar 4, 2006
|
|
cwhard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $490.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
|
I've bought (& sold) this lens twice now and never could get excited. For what you pay the images should just jump out at you, but they don't. The Sigma EX70-210 f2.8 is twice the lens for just a little more... Like I said; It's light & white and thats about it...
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2006
|
|
EagleAg06
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, lightweight, fast focus, USM, 67mm filter
|
|
Cons:
|
Have not found any yet
|
|
|
I am a college student and wanted to by the big brother of this the 2.8 but not the IS. I had to settle for this lens and have had no problems with it yet. It focuses fast and shoots well even in interior sports with a poorly lit arena.
The lens is rather light and is not a problem to handle on my 350D. The focus and zoom rings are smooth and easy. This lens is a great one if you can't afford its big brother then why not settle for this lens. It is still and L and a good one at that.
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2006
|
|
Michael_Sexton
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 692
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, sharp, smaller and lighter than 2.8 versions, smooth zoom and focus rings, FTM, USM
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood too big
|
|
|
After having this lens for only a few days I have decided that it is definately a keeper. I was undecided for months on which one I should get f/2.8 or f/4 version. Of course the 2.8 is faster but also twice the price. I decided on this lens for the price and reputation with most of the reviews here. I am very happy with my choice. Unbelievably sharp, qiuet, and fast focus. I am using this on a 20D with battery grip and it really balances quite well. Overall weight is good for those long days carrying around and I don't get tired. I mostly shoot outdoors which is where this lens really shines for me. That extra stop would be nice but not necessary for me.
If you are on a budget and want a good 70-200 zoom this is it. Of course there is always the possibility of getting a bad copy as with any lens but overall it seems there are fewer bad copies of Canon lens than the third party ones so it's worth taking the chance on this one, you won't be disappointed...
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2006
|
|
krobatshov
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 552
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $635.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, USM....L ;), weight
|
|
Cons:
|
rumors of backfocusing are true, but only once in 1000 cases...hood!!
|
|
I use it for sports and aviation photography
This lens won't let you down
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2006
|
|
kirstin
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 5, 2003
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 1512
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
If you are female or a pathetic man then the weight will be to your liking.
|
|
Cons:
|
Back focuses and its f4
|
|
|
Sent it back twice - once to have the back focusing issue adjusted. Then to have a new auto fucus motor put in. Still back focuses. Can't rely on it. Who are you trying to kid? You need the f2.8 with IS - if you buy cheap you buy twice - just brought the IS version and it kicks ass.
The people that like this lens are very tolerant and probably in love with Canon, don't trust them.
Yeah, yeah I had a bad copy - my popint exactly, bad copies of this lens exsist which is a good reason not to buy it.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2006
|
|
coppertop
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1365
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything. Build, image quality, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs to come with a tripod ring.
|
|
|
If there's one lens everyone needs in thier bag, this is the one. While the 2.8 version is faster, if you can live with the f4, this lens is a keeper.
Sharp images, fast and quiet focusing, built solidly this lens will make you smile.
My only wish is that the lens came with a tripod ring. Most of the time, you can use this lens free-handed with no difficulty. However, add a teleconverter and your need for a tripod or monopod increases.
Maybe Canon could offer a TC/Tripod Ring package?
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2006
|
|
tqli07981
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 78
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack sharp, beautiful color and light weight compare to f2.8 L IS version.
Did I mention lighting fast focus?
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
For the price it goes for, this is a very very good value. Sue I wish it has a larger apeture, but I do not want to shell out 3 times the $$$. If you compare other lense at the same price point, this is absolutely the best one. All positive things from so many other review are all true. I am so glad to own it.
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2006
|
|
pelleapa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2006
|
|
ijameson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Picture quality, size, weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap hood.
|
|
|
I have had my lens for around a month now, and cannot fault the quality of the pictures I am taking.
It is not heavy, and not as big as I was expecting. It fits nicely on my 20D. The lens cap is rather cheap though.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2006
|
|
weaver
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $589.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, size and weight, build, price
|
|
Cons:
|
giant hood, hunts in low light
|
|
I wasn't sure what to expect with this lens, there are a lot of people that say this lens is very sharp and a lot that say they have had back focus issues. I was hoping that it would be at the least as sharp as the 2.8 IS. So far I haven't had any focus problems and my copy is extremely sharp, as sharp or sharper than my 50mm f/1.4. It's also a lot smaller and lighter than I thought it would be. My only complaint is the hood size, wish it was just a bit smaller. It's going to be tough making it fit in my current bag.
Here's the test shots comparing the 70-200mm f4 to my 50mm f1.4
The 50 f1.5:
http://homepage.mac.com/mark_weaver/tests/50mm.jpg
The 70-200 f4:
http://homepage.mac.com/mark_weaver/tests/70-200mm.jpg
Both images were shot using a single strobe
Shutter: 1/200th
Aperture: f8
ISO: 400
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2006
|
|
x0SiN0x
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2006
|
|
Max_Pain
Offline
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 320
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $589.95
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, fast focusing, great build quality and feel
|
|
Cons:
|
black hood with white lens? dont like this! everything else can be fixed by upgrading to its big brother :-)
|
|
|
I've had this lens for about 5 months now and I must say i'm very impressed with the quality of images i've produced with it and my 20D. however, it is my ONLY lens (when i went dSLR only had money for one lens, picked this one), so my review might not be too accurate. but from what i've seen in other cameras and at stores, this lens seems to be very sturdy and have great build and aesthetic quality. i find the white lenses very attractive and i dont mind the attention they attract :-)
Great quality images, IMO very fast focusing, can't wait till i can upgrade to it's big brother for some nice f/2.8 action with IS! i personally like it's weight when combined with my 20+grip, but many people say it's very big (i.e. today i gave it to my photography teacher (film) to handle and first thing he said was 'needs to lose some weight!'), but like i said, i like it. so it depends on the person.
i would recommend it without a question, but being realistic, if you can go for the f/2.8 versions get them, they're just as good as this one. however, if you can't afford that, i'd take this one over the 70-300 IS anytime :-)
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
gliphix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Optics, Sharpness, Cost, Build, Weight, USM is quite and smooth
|
|
Cons:
|
Length, F/4, Ugly Hood
|
|
The 70-200mm was my second L series optics and it is amazing, you can do wonders with this. Here are some of the first few images I've taken with this lens.
Pbase Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gliphix
Favorite Prints:
http://gliphix.dpcprints.com
Impossible missions with this lens, so i think:
http://gliphix.dpcprints.com/278784
http://www.pbase.com/gliphix/image/54422530/large
I don't recommend using this optic with either of the 1.4x or the 2x II Extenders during moderate to low-light conditions. I originally bought this lens so that with the extenders I wouldn't need to buy a very expensive super telephoto lens. However, the results my pictures were consistantly poor in quality at long focal length.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just an amateur. This is just my experience with this lense and the extenders but overall the lens by itself is a work of art and you'll have a great time shoot with it. I myself am just discovering how to have a lot fun with this lens.
Thanks and Regards,
Jc
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
379
|
786879
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
