 |
|
|
oldshutterhand
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2012
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 24, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very nice build quality, saturated colours, nice contrast and sharpness, quick autofocus, nice rings, very good price
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting in full frame
|
|
This is a very nice lens, with a very good sharpness, contrast and colours, with a good focal length, and quick and almost silent autofocus, one of the best bargain in the Canon line-up.
See in more detail here:
http://oldshutterhand.com/equipment-reviews/canon-70-200-f4-review/
|
|
 Sep 24, 2013
|
|
rater
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 26, 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, build quality, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
For the price, none.
|
|
|
I bought this one together with a canon extender 1.4 and the combo worked great. Bought it to replace a Sigma 70-300 and it was a great increase in the quality of my photos. Although it is a bit short in a FF camera, on a crop sensor has a nice tele reach for a walk around lens. Size and weight are small, as its price for the quality you get (both build and image quality).
One thing I really appreciated coming from the Sigma was the constant aperture and that the front element does not rotate.
I sold it to finance a 100mm 2.8L macro.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2013
|
|
marp001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, sharpness, auto-focus speed, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
This is my first "L" lens and I really like it. The images are sharp, the auto focusing is fast. The build quality is superb.
I love the look of the pictures the lens makes, the contrast and the nice bokeh.
I chose this one over the f/2.8 mostly because of the size. It is not very heavy. Also the smaller size is an advantage, if you travel a lot like me.
If you wish, have a look at some pictures taken with this lens in this set on my flickr. all were take with my Canon EOS 7D.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinpilat/sets/72157630843357626/
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2012
|
|
Geoarts
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $499.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent image quality, very sharp, excellent focal range, lightweight, superb construction, good price
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
If you’ve wanted Canon “L” quality images without the high price tag here is the lens for you. Excellent professional class construction with superb image quality and sharpness. AF is sure and swift. Of course, no IS but if used with a fast shutter speed or with a monopod the images are quite sharp without a tripod. Excellent value and very affordable used. Highly recommend for all Canon shooters, especially those on a budget.
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2012
|
|
bpham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 3, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 494
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, inexpensive, great built quality, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS, but I knew that when I got it.
|
|
|
Had the 70-200 F2.8 before. Great lens, but sooooo heavy that I dreaded using it, so sold it because it was laying in my drawer most of the times. However, this smaller sibling is the opposite of heaviness and the picture quality is sharp even in the corners. The F4 and non-IS do not bother me because I intend to use this lens for mostly landscape and the weight allows me to carry with me on hikes or trips to abroad, and the $$ does not break the bank either. Great lens and I will probably keep this for a long time.
Saw some people complaining about vignette, but now aday that is so easy to fix in post processing so no issue here for me either...just keep in mind that this lens is sharp and light, that is the main draw for me.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2012
|
|
nswelton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 246
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, contrasty, sharp, light, small, portable, affordable, sharp -- did i mention sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
lacks IS
|
|
|
unbelievable lens. this and its IS brother are the best canon zooms made in my opinion, aside from the 70-200 2.8 mark II. once i used this lens, i was blown away by how sharp the images were. i didn't think zooms were capable of this quality wide open. i used the non IS version briefly, sold it, put my 2.8 on the shelf and reserved it for emergency only, and got the f4 IS. i love the 70-200 f4 series of lenses. they are simply phenomenal. for an outdoor shooter or a travel shooter, you can't beat them. they're easy to carry around all day and won't break your back/neck/camera bag. light, small, portable, and unbelievable optics. enthusiastic thumbs up.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012
|
|
jfwalker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, build-quality, sharpness, contrast, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
not and indoor lens (but this isn't a con, simply the right gear for the right job).
|
|
|
I was nervous when buying this lens due to the lack of IS. That being said, I am absolutely delighted with this lens' performance. It is incredibly sharp, has great contrast, and very light. Though IS may be nice (i've owned Nikon lenses with IS), I haven't found myself wanting for it in this lens. The fact is, if you're shooting outdoors or trying to stop action, your shutter-speed needs to be higher than 1/60 and therefore fast enough to stop camera-shake. I can get sharp results with this lens shooting at around 1/100 (but I have decently steady hands). This is a fantastic lens, and for the money there's nothing better.
This isn't a negative, but if you're wanting to shoot indoors the f2.8 is probably necessary.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2012
|
|
matej42
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2011
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality; price; L build quality= excellent; constant f/4; weight is OK given the solid build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
so far none
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2011
|
|
fishyfinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, L glass, very well made.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price?
|
|
Hello.
Better explain the price thing, I am one of those people that thinks everything is too much money!
Still, it is worth every penny, this is a really good lens.
I am very pleased with myself for getting it, even though I am now penny-less. Good job I like beans..
I live in Shetland, lucky me, plenty of wildlife to take pics of.
Have a look at the link below, and please tell me what you think of the puffin shot.
It is easy here to get close up to birds like puffins, if you know where to go you are almost falling over them!
Very good lens, it is a very good price, and it helps you take what you see; if you know what I mean.
Tim.
Puffin link;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishyfinger/
|
|
|
Jul 3, 2011
|
|
Badmonow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight price & Lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
Seen an the poor relation compared to the 4 other Canon 'L' 70-200's,
|
|
|
At last an 'L' prime zoom that really warrants the 'L' tag
My previous 'L' zooms have been truly abysmal - [100-400 & 70-200 F2.8 'IS '].
Because of these 2 I've avoided all zooms, and bought 85,135,200 & 400 'L' primes which are all magnificent lenses, I'd never replace the primes, but this nice 'bog standard' 70-200 makes a great walking lens, when I need big lens aperture then IMO you really need a prime.
But sofar as this lens goes - forget the expensive 70-200's and get this and save yourself some money - you won't regret it. NICE ONE CANON !!
|
|
|
May 31, 2011
|
|
dmcharg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 786
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2011
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing lens for the money, best value all round telephoto by a long way and much cheaper than the IS or 2.8 version.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 not fast enough for indoors.
|
|
|
I've had this lens for 7 years and its just amazing. It covers a very very useful range and is very sharp and contrasty. Really can't fault this lens. There is a reason canon have multiple lens in this range and thats because its a very useful range. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase this lens again.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2011
|
|
filmaze
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 18, 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, sharp. fast, quiet affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
tripod mount???
|
|
|
The review here in FM doesn't tell a lie all you read here is absolutely true....This is great lens affordable and lightweight...best of all sharp...I can live without IS..just develop a good technique in using this lens with slow shutter speed (a monopod maybe)....great bokeh too...Love this lens and it shall stay with me for many years... Affordable and yes it produce great images...
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2011
|
|
jasonpatrick
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1245
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $495.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP, Great IQ, great colors, great bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This is the only lens, outside of the 50mm 1.8 that I won't get rid of. I've had 3 telephoto lenses. 75-300 which I upgraded to the 55-250, which I upgraded to this lens. I'm not saying I'll never swing for the IS version, or upgrade to the 2.8 version, but I will ALWAYS have a version of the 70-200 in my bag. I've had close to 15 different "walk around" lenses and I'm still not super satisfied with what I'm shooting in that range. For this range, Canon doesn't disappoint.
It's sharp wide open and gets a little sharper stopped down (mostly in the corners). Unless you're using it for landscapes (I don't) the corner sharpness isn't as important. I use a monopod (having a "L" lens isn't magic, you still have to do your part) to get the sharpness I'm looking for. Portraits are amazing, colors are fantastic, Bokeh is pleasing, speed outdoors is acceptable, build quality is second to none, USM is quiet...I love everything about this lens!
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010
|
|
Marc de Wit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
Canon's best buy.
Affordable price , great build quality , comfortabel weight ,
great optical quality , sharp at F4 , nice bokeh , hood included.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010
|
|
Annapurna
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 66
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp. Good autofocus. Light compared to the 2.8 version
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I just like this lens. I had the 2.3 verion, which also was very good. But for me a bit too heavy
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2010
|
|
Dan E
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light Weight, Sharp images, fairly good in low light with higher ISO settings.
|
|
Cons:
|
None whatsoever!!
|
|
|
Owned this lens for 5 months, cannot say anything negative. Sharp images (WOW), extremely fast focus for sports and moving wildlife photography (with correct camera settings). Fairly adequate in lower light situations, within it's limitations. Light enough to carry all day. Value for price - unbeatable. Have no need for IS with this lens.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
380
|
807860
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
