 |
|
|
asus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 513
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, No rotating lens barrle, WHITE L PRO LENS, razor sharp images
|
|
Cons:
|
No trypod ring :-/
|
|
|
I used this product in the store at ritz camera, they let me take it around the mall... The guy was with me, but anyway, this lens was so sharp and fast, even focising at 200mm in the low lit mall.. up close on a hot girls face :-P
if you want a teliphoto lens that is inexpensave, reliable, is white so people look at you, and somthing you could use to kill a bear, this is the lens for you.
|
|
 Aug 18, 2004
|
|
Snappy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Weight, High Quality Optics, lightning quick AF on 10D
|
|
Cons:
|
Big & White..... Hard to be inconspicuous :-)
|
|
Having had a 2.8 version of this lens I thought I may be disapointed with the quality being that this lens is (in the UK anyway) £900 cheeper. Actualy I have to be honest and say I can not fault the quality of this lens it represents real value for money. Why pay more for the 2.8 when mostly you will use it at f4> anyway. I have prooved to myself that at f4> this lens is pin sharp, I personally think it is sharper than the 2.8. It focuses faster and is lighter so is ideal for the kind of equestrian work I do. Be it action or portraits! this lens is a genuine allrounder. See this example taken at f4 it is exactly as it came out of my 10D.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/rosswalker/IMG_0301.jpg
All pics I have taken with this lens have a real vivid quality to them which I feel helps when trying to portray sporting action.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2004
|
|
eric & his 10D
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,570.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
update
|
|
Cons:
|
update
|
|
|
I am addicted to this lense -- short and simple. I used it extenszively over the weekend (over 1,000 shots) and it is significantly clearer than my 17-40 L lense --
-- I am inseparable from this lense -- how can I get this clarity and vibrance in a wider-angle lense??
eric
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2004
|
|
8bit Barry
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jul 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Clarity, edge sharpness, weight, price, quality images, wow factor, drool factor, slick operation.
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod ring price, sod all else.
|
|
|
Well the trouble I went through in choosing this over the f2.8 (non IS)version was very worth it in the end. For those of you who have to save rather hard to get yourself L glass, take this from someone who did a bucket load of research.... buy it! The first question I think that everyone thinks is that the f4 will be considerably darker in the viewfinder. It isnt at all, it is bright and pleasing to work with. The second question is that weighty gear is usually quality gear and that this will be like a cardboard tube or something. Well it isnt, and it balances really well with an EOS body and the weight difference in comparison to the f2.8 makes it the easy winner. Third thing has to be that you will be compromising image quality, you wont. It is fantastic and from reading other reviews the results are identical to the f2.8. The focusing is extremely quick, the zoom and focus rings are smooth. Fantastic stuff.
I cannot recommend this lens more highly. The results are superb, images are full of colour and crisp edges and it is a joy to use. The longest lens I own is a 300mm f2.8L, it will now be taking a backseat as the versatility of the range is addictive and my camera bag is now light and roomy once again. I would use a tripod especially at the long end as it will enhance your quality a treat, but hand holding at 70mm is far easier than the 70-200mm f2.8. Ask yourself why you need f2.8 anyway. For a landscaper like me, if you enjoy travel, weekend walking and hiking, this is the one for you, forget the heavier big brother. You will not regret it once you buy it.
The only bugger is the tripod ring. £80 is a real killer, but if you want great shots it is worth getting, plus it fits the 300mm f4 and probably others as well.
Top notch, 10/10. I can't wait for more cheaper L series quality optics.
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United Kingdom
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, much lighter in weight than the 2.8 without sacrificing image quality, and the bokeh is surreal.
|
|
Cons:
|
I suppose it would be silly to want two of these?
|
|
|
When I first considered buying this lens, I had to o.k. it with my wife. I explained to her the capabilities of this lens, and because she's not a photographer she said, "If all this is true, I should be able to easily see the difference, right?" I sheepishly nodded.
She told me that if she could see the difference, if she could actually see the improvement in quality of the photo compared with a less expensive lens, I could buy it.
I bought it, and I've never looked at another lens since.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United Kingdom
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, much lighter in weight than the 2.8 without sacrificing image quality, and the bokeh is surreal.
|
|
Cons:
|
I suppose it would be silly to want two of these?
|
|
|
When I first considered buying this lens, I had to o.k. it with my wife. I explained to her the capabilities of this lens, and because she's not a photographer she said, "If all this is true, I sould be able to easily see the difference, right?" I sheepishly nodded.
She told me that if she could see the difference, if she could actually see the improvement in quality of the photo compared with a less expensive lens, I could buy it.
I bought it, and I've never looked at another lens since.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United Kingdom
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Relatively fast, very sharp, AF rips, and constant size / non rotating elements means this lens can take some knocks.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is barely effective. Tripod ring extra!
|
|
|
All I can add is that this lens is great! Canon had the right idea by making top-quality L lenses that are actually affordable, and it's great to see them follow up with the 17-40 L!
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United Kingdom
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, does not loose performace wide open, fast AF + FTM, accepts tripod-colar, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
non, large lens-hood, no IS
|
|
|
What's there to say, everything is super, nothigng bad about it.
I wish canon would make an IS version of this lens.
The 2.8 and 2.8 IS are to heavy for hiking.
I would like to have a smaller lens-hood.
Nice zome rage on 10D/300D
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2004
|
|
Mike LaPutt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 1, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2046
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $629.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great contrast, usable wide open, lightweight and very easily hand held.
|
|
Cons:
|
As expected, it's a tad behind in sharpness when compared to primes such as the 135 f/2 or 85 f/1.8.
|
|
|
This was for the longest time my staple lens for my motorsports photography. At f/4, it has that 3D effect that I like so much. The weight is also such a plus. I've had the 2.8 IS version and opted to keep the f/4 version because, I could not tell the difference between the images taken from both lenses. It is true about both lenses being optically similar.
The light weight allows me greater control. I am able to place my fast moving subject practically anywhere I choose in the frame.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2004
|
|
Brian1121
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Location: China
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Quiet and fast AF, USM, Not tooooo long and heavy when comparied with the 2.8L version. Good contrast, colour and resolution. Solid build!
|
|
Cons:
|
Still a little bit heavy when comparied with primes, painted white and long enough to attact a lot of attention (esp when the hood is on). May be no IS.... not f/2.8.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 14, 2004
|
|
BDL_Kid
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 15, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 57
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $579.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good price (for "L" glass), sharp, not too big/heavy, looks cool with the hood attached :-)
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
First SLR lens that I have ever had, got it with my 300D. I use it for aviation. AF is really fast. Overall it's an awesome lens. No IS but thats ok, and it would add a lot to the price anyways.
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2004
|
|
bsoten
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 592
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $659.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Professional look, feel, and construction. A good price too, B&H has them for less than $600. Excellent for an (off)white lense.
|
|
Cons:
|
Non really. I could complain that it isn't a 2.8 and that is't not stabilized but Canon does make one. I just can't afford it right now.
|
|
|
I'm quite happy with my new 70-200 f/4. IF I had the money I would have purchased the 2.8 IS but that is neither here nor there.
What can I say...it's a (off)white lense. Assuming that one is a skilled photographer, walking into the room with this lens lets the other photographers know that you are serious.
The weight is not bad at all. I use the vertical grip so it balances out pretty well.
It's worth the money, especially if you won't/can't spent $1200 or more for the highest quality L glass.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2004
|
|
Sneakyracer
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1606
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Low weight, compact, well built, smooth focusing and zooming action (both internal), stellar performance at all appertures.
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing unless one absolutely requires f2.8 and IS.
|
|
|
This is one of the best lenses I have ever used.period. I used nikon for 15 years and really no nikon lens including the 300 f4 EDIF AF was really sharper than this canon. Even wide open the 70-200 f4L is just outstanding. Its amazing. I also have the 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200mm f4L might be a tad sharper at 70mm and f4! Both are great but really the 70-200 is just insane. I didnt think 10D files could get so sharp and detailed.
I recently used my 70-200 f4L in a fashion show to shoot runway action adn even with lights in the frame pointing directly into the lens! i got pics with great sharpness/color and contrast! amazing. In about 3000 images I took in 3 days only a few had tiny flare ruin a part of it/ Most were shot at 1/200 sec and f4 @ iso 800. I was so pleased with the results, this lens is a keeper. Really a lens with legendary performance.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2004
|
|
glideslope
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 785
|
|
Review Date: Mar 27, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Low weight, very sharp, build quality, superb value.
|
|
Cons:
|
None IMO
|
|
|
Superb value befitting of the " L." It's a joy to carry for hours. My favorite lens.
Life is good.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2004
|
|
mudlake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1524
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $539.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, sharp, colorful, light, small, and not to mention light :)
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I have bought and sold many lenses over the past 5 years, but this is one that will always stay in my bag. The only thing that would make me sell this lens is if Canon came out with an IS version under $800.
I owned the 70-200/2.8 IS for a short while. After shooting with that lens for some time, I took it off and put on my f/4. Whoa!!!!!! Talk about a HUGE difference in size and weight! The little f/4 felt like a dream. I couldn't believe the difference in feel. I ended up selling the 2.8 IS for financial reasons but don't really feel too bad about it since I fell in love with my little f/4 all over again.
This lens is sharp at all apertures and gives nice bokeh. Colors are very nice as well as contrast. I love seeing the images on my screen. They have a certain "look" to them that is very pleasing.
I think Canon would be doing itself a favor if they put IS in this lens and sold it for $800 or less. I think they would sell thousands and thousands. But until that day (crossing my fingers), this lens will remain my favorite lens and one that I don't hesitate to take anywhere because of its small size. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2004
|
|
jimmythefish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Internal focus and zoom, metal components, large rubber zoom and focus rings. Half the price of the 2.8 version, small and light enough to carry around for long periods of time, excellent value.
|
|
Cons:
|
Why is the tripod ring so #*!&#$!@ expensive? Doesn't really need it but it would be nice to have it more balanced on the tripod.
|
|
|
With the possible exception of my 10D, I've not come closer to feelings of love for an inanimate object in my short life. What's not to like? There have been many reviews here, so I'll just say that I wish everything I bought was as well thought out, constructed and performed as well as this. With the high ISO performance of the latest DSLRs, the F4 is more viable. Though it would be nice to have 2.8, this is an excellent compromise and I'd buy it again in a heartbeat.
It does attract a lot of attention in casual use, but when using it to shoot sports or any other situation where people are expecting photographers, they just assume you're a professional. It's rather amusing.
My one nitpick is that the tripod collar is exceedingly expensive - enough so that I'm just going to wait until I get the 300 F4L as the collar comes with that lens and fits this one. I would really like it to use for landscape photography on a tripod.
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
379
|
786343
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
