about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
380 821096 Sep 24, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $593.78
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
9.36
9.5
ef70_200_4_1_

Specifications:
High-performance, L-series telephoto zoom lens combining light weight and compactness with an f/4 maximum aperture. Inner focusing and the ring USM enable quick and quiet autofocusing. Also, a circular polarizing filter can be attached and used without difficulty because the front lens element does not rotate during focusing. The tripod collar (sold separately) is the same one used with the EF 300mm f/4L USM.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
          
timnosenzo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1375
Review Date: May 3, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Excellent IQ, price
Cons:
None

This lens is excellent for the price. Sharp, great color & contrast, its just a pleasure to use. Add to that the metal barrel, constant aperture, fast USM focusing and you have a great medium telephoto zoom at a really reasonable price. I'd recommend this lens to anyone as long as they don't mind the size (I think its fine, some might find it a little conspicuous.

Great lens & a great value.


May 3, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add timnosenzo to your Buddy List  
fmSkewl
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 1, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 72
Review Date: Apr 19, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Image quality, weight, construction and price.
Cons:

I recently sold this lens after 2 years of ownership. In 2004 I purchased a 20D, 17-40 and this lens. In the interim I added a 10-22, 50 1.4 and 100-400. The IQ this lens produced was consistently my favorite out of the kit; with great sharpness, colour and contrast.

The primary reason that I decided to sell this lens is its lack of IS. Most of my shooting is under good lighting conditions and without a tripod. However there are times in the early morning and dusk where I have wished for IS. There is nothing more disappointing to me than pulling up a photo on the computer which is slightly out-of-focus.

For now I am using the 100-400 to cover the same focal range. However I suspect that I will purchase a 70-200 F/4 IS in the future. I highly recommend this lens if you are unwilling to pay for the IS version and do not require faster glass (2.8).


Apr 19, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add fmSkewl to your Buddy List  
Max Young
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 5, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Review Date: Apr 5, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build quality, lght weight, sharpness of image
Cons:
Price - Canon stuff is always expensive, lens cap functionality is inferior to Nikon

Have just jumped ship to Canon 30D from Nikon D70. The Canon body has many great qualities but ergonomically is not in the same league as the brilliant but aging D70. However, the topic here is the lens, so I digress thus far.

I hae used the 70-200 F4 L lens for about three weeks now. In a word, it is brilliant. The images are incredibly sharp, but I will admit I am coming from using an el cheapo Tamron 300mm lens so my comparison may not be quite fair.

The motor is almost silent, focussing is very fast, and image quality is sharp. IS would be nice but that's what a tripod is useful for - reducing the ippy-yippee-shakes.

All in all, a great buy. The IS version is way too expensive to justify it's use for me (being a part time professional).

Thoroughly recommended.

For a few sample images (taken today with this lens):

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l169/ozimax/B11.jpg
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l169/ozimax/B13.jpg
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l169/ozimax/B9.jpg
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l169/ozimax/B16.jpg


Apr 5, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Max Young to your Buddy List  
Tobers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 39
Review Date: Mar 4, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Image quality, build quality, looks cool
Cons:
Would like IS but too costly

Got a great deal on a new one from eBay in the UK. A superb quality lens which has got me hooked on L-series lenses now. Beautifully sharp images and flawless build quality. A pleasure to use.

I'll be adding a 1.4x converter shortly as well.



Mar 4, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Tobers to your Buddy List  
Brian Kersey
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1261
Review Date: Mar 1, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $525.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very Sharp, Great Colors, Excellent Contrast, Fast and Silent Autofocus, Non-rotating front element, light, and its White
Cons:
No tripod Collar

I was in a debate whether to get this lens or the 70-300 for about two months. Finally I decided to go with the "L" glass and I have not been disappointed yet! This lens is extremely light and easy to carry around on hikes or at zoos all day. The colors are spectacular compared to my old 75-300 III. I use this for Wildlife, Zoo, and Sports Photography with no problem. For the price you cannot beat this lens. If you are deciding between the 70-300 IS and this, choose this even if you want the extra 100mm. The images look better cropped on this lens anyway. Hope I helped!


Mar 1, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Brian Kersey to your Buddy List  
elfanucchi
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 135
Review Date: Feb 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $525.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp images, Crisp focus, Lite weight, Good Value compared to 2.8 and IS versions
Cons:
None

My first L Grade Lens and I bought it just before my Alaska Trip and cruise. I also use it for wedding closeup's with both 10D and 20D.
It is long enough but short enough for some wildlife and helicopter use.


Feb 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add elfanucchi to your Buddy List  
David Murrell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Good build; light weight; sharp; great colours; great contrast; fast accurate focussing
Cons:
non that I can think of, other than I would prefer it in black.

My first 'l' lens, and man oh man does this lens rock. I bought it to go travelling around Kazakhstan with my 20d, and it produced some superb pictures that I am very proud of. The weight is just right for travelling, and I wouldn't have wanted the f2.8 version because of this.

Fast, accurate focussing, combined with acute sharpness, excellent build quality, wonderful colours and contrast, and a reasonable price. I can see why this is one of Canon's popular lenses.

I suppose now they have made an IS version I will have to save my pennies and get that eventually, because if IS works then I can see that it will be very useful (one or two pictures in Kazakhstan suffered because I was pushing it to the limit and beyond when hand held).

Get one on the second hand market -people are flooding it as they upgrade to the IS version I guess. But I don't think you can blame this lens if you take a bad photo.


Feb 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add David Murrell to your Buddy List  
Paul Sutton
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Review Date: Feb 23, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build, Colours, Sharpness, Price
Cons:
No Tripod ring supplied, Hood a bit ugly

This was my first L lens, i bought it just after i bought the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, when id got it a realised what L lenses are about, i sent that back and replaced it with the 24-105 f4 L IS. this lens is still much sharper than that and i am so so pleased with. I would have liked the f2.8 version, however for the price this won hands down. i love it!

Feb 23, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Paul Sutton to your Buddy List  
Mark Green
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 23, 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 17, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: internal zoom, F4, weight, but most of all, sharpness, contrast and colour
Cons:
none yet

Only got this yesterday and it's wonderful. For the price, to get an L lens, it's unreal. Took it to the beach today and wasn't worried about sand as it zooms internally. It's fantastic and I love the sharpness of the photos. I'd be wary of buying it though as once you buy an L lens - you're hooked. Ha - buy it - well worth the bucks!

Feb 17, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Mark Green to your Buddy List  
keithallenlaw
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 98
Review Date: Feb 13, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $580.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharpness, color, contrast, weight and construction. Oh, and what a bargain.
Cons:
None.

Well I though I'd better finally weigh in on this lens. I bought
it when I bought my 30D in the spring of 06 so I've had time
enough to get personal with this lens. Sharp all the way through.
The color and contrast is just great. Built like a tank. I hear some
owners say that the hood looks awful but I think it looks just fine.
Works well and I never take it off. I really like its size, weight, and
portability when trekking on long hikes. I still wonder about that extra stop of the f/2.8 when the light gets low but for all the
pros of this lens I can live with the f/4. Very nice bokeh at long
focal lengths.

Now about 5 months ago I bought the 5D and strapped it to this lens and wow. I was even more impressed. What a combo.
The 5D's full frame is demanding as they say on lenses and I
do notice a little softness in the upper right corner wide open
at wider focal lengths. No major concern for me though.
The new IS does look tempting but my mono-pod will do
for now. I have thought about getting the f/2.8 IS version
of this lens but I will tell you this, I'm not letting this one go!


http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw/image/64819822
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw/image/68818267
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw/image/65808542


Feb 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add keithallenlaw to your Buddy List  
Peter Duffield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 13, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Review Date: Feb 13, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Excellent optical quality and bokeh, light weight. Reasonable price for "L" lens
Cons:
None so far

Very good lens. I originally bought the EFS 55-200 which was a big mistake, the difference between the two is unbelievable. Even at 100% crops detail on the 70-200 is amazing and the relatively large aperture along with the low noise at high ISO of Canon cameras makes it very useable even in fairly low light.
One question i have....the reviews i read before i bought mine last fall seemed to indicate this was a metal barrelled lens...i'm pretty sure that mine is plastic. I know the price dropped on these, is that because canon switched to plastic? Anyone know? If they have it doesn't seem to have affected the performance at all, perhaps the durability though.


Feb 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Peter Duffield to your Buddy List  
genefixer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jan 22, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 6429
Review Date: Feb 13, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Compact lens, solid feel, IS really works, sharp images and a good intermediate reach lens
Cons:
none really

Recently purchased a 30D, the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, EF-S 10-22mm and this 70-200 beauty of a lens. I set except for a longer reach lens. I find the 70-200 versatile both on and off the tripod. See a tripod shot with the Canon Remote Switch and with fill flash of an Anna's hummingbird on our backyard feeder. This was taken from about 12-14ft and is a cropped image to show the sharpness of this lens. And this is from a beginner!

link for hummie shot: http://www.pbase.com/generepair/ef_70-200_f4_is_usm


Feb 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add genefixer to your Buddy List  
Aaron T
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 31
Review Date: Feb 12, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: VERY VERY SHARP, light, non-rotating barrel (good for CPL's), fairly cheap price, nice bokeh
Cons:
White, Long

Amazing lens, I'll never let it go. Add a teleconvertor on it and it could work as a medium telephoto for birds. I love the sharpness and the OOF with the 8-blades. Even though it's only F/4, it performs exceptionally well!

Feb 12, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Aaron T to your Buddy List  
PhilO
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 21, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 5
Review Date: Feb 3, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: What a value!
Cons:
None (if you KNOW your post processing)

Folks, I'm not going to say much. Seeing is believing:

Macro (with extension tubes and tripod)

http://www.pbase.com/pao/image/51957064

At 100 in very low light:

http://www.pbase.com/pao/image/53622034

At 200 handheld:

http://www.pbase.com/pao/image/52828581


Superb color, contrast and sharpness make a great starting point for post processing optimization.









Feb 3, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PhilO to your Buddy List  
Jackel
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 388
Review Date: Jan 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Fantastic Color, Contrast, and Sharpness. Excellent value. Light. Fast accurate focus.
Cons:
None.

Some people say a negative of this lens is that it is only f4. But that's why it is only 599 new and a fraction of the weight of the 2.8. You could just as easily say a negative of the 2.8 is that it's not 1.4.

The lens is absolutely fantastic in every way but low light performance.


Jan 29, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Jackel to your Buddy List  
Stephen Cooper
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 14, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 14, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Size, Weight, Clarity of image
Cons:
Hood, would've been nice to have a built in one like the 300mm. No tripod ring supplied. Apparently not weather sealed (ooops, still works though after using it is bad rain!).

I was initially hesitant about this purchase as my previous telephoto zoom was pretty poor (80-200 kit lens from Eos 500). After reading here and subsequently using the lens I can recommend it.

Lack of IS (at the time the IS version wasn't out) does make it a little tricky to use in bad light. But other than that i've got no complaints really.

Not a big fan of the lens hood, though it can be reversed and fitted to the lens for storage.

Probably one of the cheapest 'L' lenses you can buy, cheap on cost, not on quality.


Jan 14, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Stephen Cooper to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
380 821096 Sep 24, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $593.78
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
9.36
9.5
ef70_200_4_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next