 |
|
|
dukeblue01
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, focus speed, size, build quality, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood loosens over time, white color clashes with my gray 350D and draws attention, zoom ring jiggles a bit after 6 months of use, only 200mm? no major complaints.
|
|
|
The 70-200 f/4 is my first piece of "L" glass and I have been impressed thus far with its performance.
Images are very sharp even wide open and the autofocus is very fast and accurate. FTM helps when dealing with multiple subjects and a large aperature. Build quality is much better than the canon consumer lenses I have used, and I have no major complaints about the lens whatsoever. The vast majority of reviews which have preceeded mine are accurate in touting the lens's sharpness, speed, quality, and price.
The only complaints I have are relatively minor. The lens hood does not stay as tightly as when I first put it on, but it is by no means about to fall off, only it shakes slightly to the touch. Surprisingly, the zoom ring does now as well, only very slightly, however this did not happen when I first purchased the lens. It is very slight and not a problem in any way. It still feels rock solid compared to anything else i've owned.
I gripe at times that I wish it could be a 300mm but I knew it wasnt when I bought it so it's my own fault for not getting closer.
I give the lens a "10" based on its price, build, focus speed, and quality. I can't imagine a much sharper picture or faster focusing speed, and the price is very managable.
|
|
 Jan 9, 2006
|
|
execom99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2005
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 173
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $570.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremelly sharp from the corners, light, excellent colors, contrast and CA control
|
|
Cons:
|
white color, tripod mount not included
|
|
This lens is @100 as sharp as Canon 100 Macro (I did test of this macro lens against a Tamron 90 and Canon is sharper). Colors and contrast are beautiful L-class. This is really must-have lens for landscapes becouse its weight/performance ratio 
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2006
|
|
larhaf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
easy, sharp 6 good looking
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far..
|
|
|
Just bought this one, itīs kind of dark and cold here at the moment, waiting for the weekend and some sun to try this one out, heard a lot of good about it.
Took a few shots today, satisfied so far, though it lacks in focus some times..
1.2-infinity, 3,0 - infinity, which 1 is the best to use during all round shots?
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2006
|
|
Scanor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremly sharp when used proparly.
Lightweight and easy to handle
|
|
Cons:
|
I miss a tripod color.
|
|
|
I had some problems shooting at F4 in poor light without a tripod, but then again, who does't..
I got better results when stopping it down a few stops. But wide open it's still very sharp.
I use it with a 1.4 converter and it still works like a charm. But be aware. The converter slows autofokus down by quite a bit.
Color and contrast is exelent.
For those who say "wish this lens had a F2.8" or "F4 is a bit slow" then I say go get the F2.8 lens.. this is NOT a F2.8 lens and it never have been.
On the other hand I wish Canon could do a 70-300 F4L. But I won't hammer this lens for that.
I highly recomend this lens for those who needs it's preformance.
I use it regurarly for all kinds of photography.
I've shot portraits,landscape, aircraft/airshows, birds and wildlife. It preforms beautifully as long as the lighting is good.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2006
|
|
brendo234
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 24
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, quick auto-focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't fit in my small bag ;-)
|
|
|
Great lens, I use it primarily for outdoor sports photography. I wanted to get the 2.8 IS, but I couldn't justify spending twice as much on a lens that might not get as much use.
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2005
|
|
smac
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $589.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp! Light and compact for the range. Rugged build.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This is my 2nd one of these. I sold the 1st one to get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. The IS is very handy, but I found that due to the size and weight of the f2.8, I didn't carry it with me everywhere I went, like I do with the f4. So I bought another f4 and while I had the two together, I ran some resolution tests with consistant standards - raw, tripod, flat plane, etc. What I found was that the f4 was actually sharper at all lengths and apertures and had slightly better color and contrast. And my f2.8 was a really sharp one. If you don't need the stop (I have fast primes) or the IS (is this in the next f4?) this version of the 70-200 is OUTSTANDING!
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2005
|
|
mariusg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Color, sharpness, range, weight,
|
|
Cons:
|
the ring
|
|
|
I love this lens, I used it on crop sensor for almost 2 years, and now I moved to full frame, and I love it even more, because the range is much more usable. Now it's my portrait lens, and I use this and a 50mm prime (lack of proper WA lens) 80% of the time. At F4 is a bit soft, and the F2.8 version is a better investment for low-light , but I still give both lenses 10 because they are in different price ranges. Besides, I could not handheld a the camera, flash and 70-200 F2.8 for long, even 1.5lb is a lot, but at least it's sturdy (ok, it feels sturdy)
What I hate about it is the tripod ring. It's almost a quarter of the lens price (or at least was when I bought it) and I never use it because it's heavy, it interferes with my handholding and in fact I don't need it since the cameras seem to hold the lens just fine. Use a generic telephoto holder instead.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2005
|
|
smac
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $565.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, great build, excellent color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
A truly great lens! I sold mine to get the 2.8 IS, but miss it's size and weight.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2005
|
|
yverick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 27, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 313
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very high quality lens: optics and build
|
|
Cons:
|
difficult to get good details in low light. explanation in the review
|
|
|
I have this lens with me for nearly two years now and i'm still as thrilled as i was the day i purchased it. And my photographic skills are much greater now!
I'm a student photojournalist and occasionnal studio photographer. I bought the 70-200 f/4L at the beginning of my paid career because i wanted the best, but as a student cannot afford the 2.8 version. I selected it over the sigma 2.8 without much hesitations.
I don't regret this purchase and definitly love the lens: it has been with me in the U.S. , here in canada where i work and live, in france to get shots of those great parisian monuments and recently on assignement on the african side of the mediteranean sea (Tunisia).
The image quality is superlative and won't let you down.
The only problem is with the maximum aperture and the relative long focal lens. In poorly lit environment it's tough to get great details in the picture. First, no light means slow shutter speed and lack of sharpness due to camera-shake. It also means high iso which have less details than the low iso settings. So if you decide to get this lens be prepared to shoot differently in low light and don't expect the great details this lens is capable of (or use a monopod).
Contrast and bokeh are still there though
To sum up: it is a great lens to learn photography as it is always high quality and never seems to be overwhelmed by the assignement. I'm only sadened by the fact that mine will eventually be sold for the big brother (2.8 IS) as i (hopefully) enter the confirmed pro world.
(sorry for my english, i'm a french speaker)
Have a great day!
Yverick
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2005
|
|
acscardoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 6, 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, smaller size, excellent sharp, good price
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod collar sold separately
|
|
|
This is my first Canon L lens, and I have absolutely no regrets
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2005
|
|
ontime
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1999
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Not too heavy (although a batgrip would help to balance in the XT's case), super-fast autofocus, very sharp pictures.
|
|
Cons:
|
The lens hood. White color.
|
|
|
I'm going to write this review as a beginner to the DSLR world. The last camera I owned was a Panasonic Lumix DMZ FZ-20, took a little over 5k pictures with that, then decided to move up so I could play with the big boys. I got the Rebel XT, the kit lens (garbage), and the 70-200 F4L as my mid-ranged weaponry.
4000/5000+ of my pictures with my last camera were shooting surfing,bodyboarding, and bodysurfing, and the 500 more were shooting motorcycle stunts. I haven't done that yet with this lens, but I have taken nearly 1000 pictures of a couple soccer games, a basketball game, and general shots of my campus here at ND. I'd say I'm still learning, but many of my pictures have been so amazing with a sharpness I have not seen before. I have not had any issues with this lens, and focusing has been absurdly fast (which I'm not used to), sharp, and accurate. It is also very quiet. Pictures are sharp across a wide range of apertures. I would like to have a 2.8 in this range, but I paid for an f4 so I'm not going to complain about difficulty in low-light situations. It's not like I was tricked into the f4.
The build: I don't have much to compare against. But I will say that this lens seems very, very sturdy. The white color does scream "steal me" as someone else pointed out. I'm not sure about its susceptibility to the weather. I have taken this lens out while it was snowing, 45 mph winds, and negative temperatures, but I covered it up with a homemade cover consisting of a trash bag and a wristband. It (and the camera) functioned well in these negative temperatures. On a final note here, the lens hood sucks. It does not go on fast enough (even after putting it on many, many times it takes guess work) and it seems loose on the lens.
Honestly, the real test will be in two weeks when I return to Hawaii, where I will be rejoining the surf photography world.
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2005
|
|
ShadowWalker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2023
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $570.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
What everyone else has said. Build, sharpness, contrast, focus speed etc.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
This is a fantastic lens as everyone else has said. It's priced great ... but having it will make you want to buy more L lenses. After having this a few months I purchased the 300 F4L IS (wow !!!) and am now eyeing the new 24-105 F4L IS.
The only thing that would make it better would be having the new 3rd generation IS on it.
Very highly recommended.
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2005
|
|
hiroshima
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 125
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
cheapest L, great color, fast AF, pretty light for the range
|
|
Cons:
|
long enough that a small bag is not longer an option,
|
|
|
Not much that I can add over what others have said. This entry level L lens makes all of your other old non-L glass look and feel cheap. The pictures from this are great and the colors are spectacular. Since I am new to the hobby, I have only had the use of a few other lenses, but this is by far the #2 value in the Canon lens lineup (#1 being the 50 1.8 mkII). Addictive to shoot, and dangerous to the pocket book because more L glass will most definately be in the future once you start. This feels like a Hi-Fi home audio slippery slope all over again!
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2005
|
|
jhsymington
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Can't find a bad thing to say about this lens. Light, sharp, good colour rendition, great build quality and a decent price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
A must have for photographers out and about in the wild. The lack of a tripod collar is a non-issue as far as I am concerned - it is so light that I cannot see the need. This is a no-brainer lens to buy - particularly for landscape photographers like me who don't often need IS or f2.8.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2005
|
|
ukcolin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superbly sharp. If this is to be your first 'L' lens you should know you are at the top of a slippery slope as you will compare all your lenses to this! Reasonably light and works well with 1.4x Extender
|
|
Cons:
|
White. If you need to have blurred backgrounds for portraits etc you might want to consider the f2.8 instead to get the narrower depth of field.
|
|
|
What a lens! Great value. It is a bit smaller and lighter than many of the alternatives that offer similar image quality and seems easy to hold even with the 1.4 x extender. The image quality with this combination is very good too. IS would be useful but would put the price up
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2005
|
|
Ribeiro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 19, 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great "L" quality optics and built... Light weight... good zoom rage on a "non full-frame" Dig.SLR.
|
|
Cons:
|
Color... not Black :o(
|
|
|
What can I say that hasnīt allready been said?... well not mutch!!
I was devided between this lens and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and am realy gglad I went with this one!!!
Ok so the 70-300 has IS and a longer zoom range... big deal! IS is allways nice to have but the extra 100mm don't bother me at all with the image quality I get out of the L lens I can crop down without loss of quality and compensate this diference easely!
The 70-300 built quality is nower near the L lens, same as the optic quality (despite some creatics one the net saying that their same or that the 70-300 is better... it is all BS, at least with the ones I tested!).
As for the f/2.8 models (Sigma and Canon) image quality are the same but if your not shooting in low light conditions go for the f/4... it is mutch lighter to walk arround with and less expensive!
I truly recomend this lens to any Pro or advanced amateur!
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
379
|
788935
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
