 |
|
|
Abdullah M
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2008
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $613.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It's L class lens = good build quality, good optics, sharp images, quick AF, and it is light to hold all time.
|
|
Cons:
|
this zoom range (70-200) is not wide nor not tele, insufficient in low light situation..
|
|
|
I bought this lens last week (2300 SR) 613$.
It's very good zoom lens for bright light events, when you can use +1/250sec.
It's produce sharp images, sometimes better than my 50mm 1.8 prime, quick AF (it has ring USM) with full-time manual focusing.
It's good for lightweight and price.
I think there are 2 downsides in this lens:
-the zoom range is in middle ! not wide in 70mm and not tele in 200mm!
-because the lack of IS and fast aperture; this lens is insufficient in low light situation and it will force you to noisy ISOs!!
|
|
 Sep 3, 2008
|
|
Chuck Kuhn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3891
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $510.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, L glass, well made, inexpensive, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I bought this lens over 2 yrs ago and it was my walk around lens. Traveled all over Vietnam, and most of Asia with this lens. It's weight is perfect for travel. I shoot mostly outdoors, people and sights, so f/4 is fine. The L Glass on this lens produces excellent photos. It was my first L. 24-100 L and 100-400 L came after. I will note that this lens was stolen w/ 5D and other lenses. So, I'll will repurchase the 70-200 L but in IS, since that is the newest in this series. Get this lens, if you can't afford the IS and shoot mostly outdoors.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2008
|
|
Brendan Rouse
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 20, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build, IQ, sharpness, colour reproduction, weight, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
If you can get away with F4 then buy this lens. I am very impressed with it.
I use it for outdoor sport and also portraiture.
I also have the 135L if I get stuck in low light so they would well together.
This lens produces A+ quality images.
Big plus also is the feather-like weight
Highly recommend especially if you cant afford the F2.8 version
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2008
|
|
form
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2552
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $475.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast autofocus
|
|
Cons:
|
Back focus problem, very soft at and near MFD @ 200mm
|
|
|
Very bad experience with this lens. I purchased used and received the lens in great, mint-like condition cosmetically. The problem is, it has a very distinct and consistent rear-focusing issue which, even if Canon could repair it, would cost me more than the difference between buying the amount I paid and buying a brand new lens with warranty.
Person who sold it to me magically disappeared after selling.
On the other hand, the focus is fast and the area in focus is generally quite sharp even wide open; but I rarely use my lenses past f/3.5 anymore and though I thought this would suffice until I could afford an f/2.8 telephoto zoom, it seems that it just isn't fast enough.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2008
|
|
arovane
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 20, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I Love this Lens, my copy is razorsharp @4.0. The USM is pretty fast and the build quality is perfect
|
|
Cons:
|
at poor light you are missing the IS :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008
|
|
justinvl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 103
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light-Weight, Sharp, L-Glass, good range
|
|
Cons:
|
f/4 not f/2.8 (duh), seeks in low light (expected), Tripod Collar not included
|
|
|
I picked this lens off an FM member here a few years ago who was upgrading the the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. If I was to compare the two, I'd have to say they are quite different lenses for completely different people. The f/4 is light and small compared to it's big brother the f/2.8 IS - I'm sure the f/4 IS and f/2.8 live somewhere in-between. But for me, taking any zoomish shots mostly during the day or in well-lit auditoriums, I don't need the extra allowance of light the f/2.8 allows (I'm likely shooting at f/5.6 anyways).
I will say that the f/2.8 is a beautiful lens, and the things IS can do on it are wonderful - think carrying it around is heavy? So is a tripod. However, I still take many great and sharp shots with the f/4 at at least a third of the price. If you want this focal range, and are looking for some great glass but can't afford the big daddy in the zoom "trinity" then this is certainly a great lens for you.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008
|
|
Spock lonewolf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2008
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
It is sometimes better to turn AF off in poor lighted areas.
|
|
|
Good lens you can take everywhere due to it's quite compact design and reasonable weight.
It's not as sharp as most of the prime lenses, but still sharp enough to be one of the best zoom lenses.
|
|
|
May 9, 2008
|
|
adam613
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 873
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, size, price, image quality, build quality, internal focus, internal zoom, takes a teleconverter well, and did I remember to mention how sharp it is?
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't include tripod collar. Makes images taken with other lenses look soft.
|
|
|
This lens is what really made me understand why people spend so much money on "better glass". Of all of the other lenses I've tried, the main difference was sharpness. This lens certainly doesn't disappoint in that category; it's tack-sharp at f/5.6, and better at f/4 than anything else I can afford. But I wasn't prepared for the better color reproduction or contrast that I got out.
I do a lot of landscapes, with aviation mixed in. As I usually like to do panoramas rather than use a wide-angle lens, the focal length is perfect for landscapes, and the image quality can't be beat. Photoshop actually does a more accurate job of stitching panoramas with this lens than it did with my old 70-300 IS, no doubt due to the sharpness. And since it has internal focus and internal zoom, it is a snap to use on a tripod with a circular polarizer (although it would be nice if it included a tripod collar).
I use a 1.4x TC with this lens for aviation photography. Such activity around here ideally needs at least a 300mm zoom, but the quality of this lens with a 1.4x TC rivals the 100-400 at shared focal lengths. So it will work just fine until I can afford something more ideal.
My only real complaint about this lens is the tendency to infect its users with "L Disease". I have a good copy of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as my walkaround lens, but somehow it just doesn't seem to measure up...
|
|
|
May 8, 2008
|
|
Anthony Hope
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Very well built, weight and very cheap for an L.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not very sharp, poor AF especially in low contrast areas and low light.
|
|
Hello, I use this for landscapes and the AF is very annoying in low light or low contrast areas, I have to keep switching it manual as it just can't AF, all my other lenses have been fine, not sure if I've got a lemon though.
Its also not very sharp, especially when compared to the 17-40mm, 10-22mm and 85mm F1.8, but I suppose you get what you pay for and at £300 it may serve a purpose for some, but not if you make money from your photogrpahy.
I'm very disappointed in this lens, especially after all the rave reviews it has.
I'm going to give the F4 IS version a try, as it can't be twice the price for no reason.
Cheers
Anthony
www.hopesphotos.co.uk
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2008
|
|
M Nur Ihsan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2007
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, fast AF, silent, near AF range, great tele-lens range, great fix diafragma
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Just bought several weeks ago, keep with my 30D
Before I just used Nikon, but this is different. This lens makes me migrate to Canon, with awesome range and great image result
No worried of become noise image with fix (F4) no IS is not a problem for me, as long as I can keep my hands still
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2008
|
|
wayver
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, Light, inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Could have made it in black.
|
|
|
This glass is super sharp, sharper then my 24-105L. It seems sharper than IS version. Reason I got it was for the price and non
IS, I use a monopod for my IS, IS on lens just makes it heaver in weight and price. I would recommend this lens to anybody.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2008
|
|
jimbo67
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 10, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, Lightweight, Sharp, Relatively inexpensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
Have to pay more for L series sharpness, that I can get with 300 dollar Sigma??
|
|
|
I am very pleased with the AF (married with my 20D)...quiet, fast, not much hunting even in low light. Absolutely spot on with respect to focus, perhaps a recent 20D firmware has resolved the back-focus issue?? It is sharp, but my Sigma 70-300mm F4/5.6 APO is very close in IQ at 350 dollars cheaper in price. It's unfortunate that I have to purchase an L series lens to get awesome IQ with a Canon lens, that other 3rd party manufacturers can offer at a much cheaper cost. I'm gonna keep them both...the macro on the Sigma is pretty darn good, and I can't let it go!! Don't get me wrong...the IQ of the Canon is still a bit better...maybe I lucked out with my Sigma...dunno??
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2008
|
|
yohay
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Location: Israel
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight (relative), cheap (relative). fast, bulid quality and great preformance
|
|
Cons:
|
none.
|
|
|
really a great lens!
the bulid quality is perfect, and it's a very fast lens.
it's cheap relative to it's preforamnce, and also lightweight, again, it's relative. (750g).
I think that is one of the lenses that shows the highest value of money in the market.
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2008
|
|
kumman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2005
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 55
|
|
Review Date: Mar 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light
|
|
Cons:
|
none...
|
|
|
just bought the lens, love the colors, focusing is fast especially with the limited on 3m. Best thing is how light it is compared to the 2.8 versions, wouldnt mind carrying this around all day.
the only thing i dont like is the limited zoom range, for birds 200mm on a crop body isnt enough, for me, most of the time, a 100-400 would have worked much better i guess, but for the price its great.
at 200mm i expected some softness wide open compared to a stop or two down but from 100%crops theres not much difference that i can make out. The bigger issue is correct focusing at 200mm and my old XT doesnt seem to be doing a really good job at that.
If you can afford the IS version definitely get that, i couldn't so i got this...
|
|
|
Mar 8, 2008
|
|
markarce
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 478
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $731.25
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It makes you smile when you use it. (if you have something better, then you are not looking at this comment)
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing really. everybody here uses white bodied lenses bigger than this which doesnt really make it stand out. my belly protrudes longer than this lens.
|
|
|
this is the culprit that introduced me to L's. just get one with confidence but first check out if it is a good copy.
if i canon would fulfill onewish from a 70-200 f4 owner, that would be to make it at least weather sealed. with that i'll be like rambo under the mud and this lens is my machine bazooka thing.
definitely recommended lens.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2008
|
|
sendjo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, constant f4, lightweight, sharp, price...
|
|
Cons:
|
none if you know what you buying..
|
|
|
Good tele zoom for every serious amateur.. can`t find any weakness on this lens. If you don`t need constant f2.8 or image stabilization - go for it, you can`t miss with this one!
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
379
|
786762
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
