 |
|
|
Rubber Soul
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 636
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp wide open, hardly any room to improve sharpness when stopping down. Relatively lightweight and very portable. It's so sharp, it made my other lenses seem dull in comparison.
|
|
Cons:
|
No tripod collar. Image stabilization starts off with a very audible scratchy sound. Canon's claim of 4-stops image stabilization benefit may be overstated.
|
|
|
This is a great lens. The colors are nicely saturated, contrast is excellent, and it's as sharp as any lens I have ever had the pleasure of using. Image quality is nearly at a peak when shooting wide open at f4 --- there's hardly any room for improvement when stopping down.
I'm a rabid pixel peeper, so I tested this lens taking photos of newspaper clippings taped to a wall. With a blind test at 300% magnification at all focal lengths and at all aperture, I couldn't consistently differentiate between my test images! It's incredible.
Personally, I would never, ever buy any telephoto lens that doesn't have Image Stabilization. There are just too many situations where a tripod isn't available, and too often poor lighting prohibits any shutter speed faster than 1/100 sec --- especially with an f4 lens. Image stabilization allows me to get good results in low light, at shutter speeds of 1/20 seconds or slower. This feature is expensive, but I really believe the price is well worth it. Especially if it means not missing all those shots.
Canon claims the I.S. gives 4 stops of hand holdability. In practice, though, I found that I can only *consistently* get pin sharp results with 2 stops. At 3 stops, I'd say my keeper rate is about 50/50.
This is a GREAT lens, as long as you realize it's limitations --- with a maximum aperture of f4, don't expect it to stop action in low lighting.
The f2.8 versions of this lens are much bigger, and twice as heavy. Those were great lenses, but many people end up leaving them home too often because they were such a chore to lug around in many situations. What good is a great lens if it's left at home so many times? For this reason, I feel the new 'EF 70-200mm f/4L IS' lens is a far better lens.
I enthusiastically give this a 10/10!
|
|
 Dec 12, 2006
|
|
blairware
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight, great contrast, IS REALLY WORKS!, very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
doesn't come with tripod collar
|
|
|
Portable, usable, super high quality, etc... this is the best zoom lens I have ever used. It lives up to all of the claims and hype. I only wish the 24-105mm was half as good. Run, don't walk to your nearest dealer.
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2006
|
|
Croce
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 402
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,049.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, fast, sharp, excellent color characteristics, nice bokeh, weathersealed, 4 stop IS which works!
|
|
Cons:
|
Point and shooters will not ga ga you as much as if you had the 2.8
|
|
|
How good is it? I sold my 2.8 IS!
I was concerned about the one stop difference between the 2.8 and 4 but what I found was, the IS makes up for it in handhelds and the bokeh is so good that the increased depth of field does not hurt it. One stop for a one pound weight reduction. Equal or better performance. No Brainer!
Another BIG (to me) plus is that it does not attract looky loos and WOW, lookit that lens. Boy, I'll bet that really gets the job done huh? No dildo head, the photographer gets the job done!
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2006
|
|
Hans im Glueck
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp even wide open at the corners at fullframe (!),almost on par with a prime, IS works great, a perfect travel-lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
visible vignetting @200mm,f4 ; IS is loud ; EXPENSIVE especially in Europe
|
|
|
"OK ,this lens is too expensive, the IS starts its work with a nasty scratching noise , the build quality is not as outstanding as the non IS version ( only the front part and the bajonett seems to be metal. In the middle the tube looks and feels like plastic ). You better send it back to your dealer."
Thats what I thought first when i got it, but then I saw the first pictures on my monitor from the lens with my 5D:
"Wow, pictures are tack sharp at all apertures, even wide open in the corners at my 5D, IS gives you brillant pics with 1/15 at 200mm without tripot, so its worth the money".
Only remark: there is a little vignetting on the long end at f4,
but not a serious problem.
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2006
|
|
anseladams
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 61
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,245.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super Awesome IS, Pretty Light, White!, Tack Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
The Price Was Kind Of Expensive But I Knew That Before I Bought It. So Could That Be A Con?lol
|
|
|
This is a very great lens. I can shoot at 1/6 of a second at 200mm tack sharp. I am only fifteen and i worked alot to get it, boy was it worth it. I would recomend anybody to go out and buy it.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2006
|
|
Beau Suwanraks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 5, 2006
Location: Thailand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, lightweight, IS,very good bokeh for at f4
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I am not an expert at lens test but I already have some of Canon's L lens (16-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8,135 f2,300 f4 IS) along with several Leica M lens (summicron) so I think I know of what sharpness is since this is quite subjective. After a day shooting with this lens, I can confirm what others have already mentioned,this is a very sharp lens even at f4. I found it to be similar characteristic to the 135 f2 in term of sharpness and color. My only worry before buying this lens was the bokeh at f4 when shooting portrait might not be as smooth as the f2.8 offers by the 70-200 2.8IS which I was also thought of buying but the weight was too much for travelling purpose. To my surprise, the bokeh was smooth much better than the other lens I own at f4. So to sum up, I am very happy with this lens and would highly recommend it to everyone especially for those who will use it mainly as a travel lens.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2006
|
|
kross
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Dec 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, tack sharp, incredible IS, it's a L
|
|
Cons:
|
just a nit... loud IS but u won't notice it after awhile...
|
|
|
this is an incredible lens.... sharp at wide open and throughout...
4 stops IS is TRUE! (for me at least...)
My best L lens so far! Highly recommended!
cheers...
kross
|
|
|
Dec 1, 2006
|
|
2bruce
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 280
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact lightweight body - 760g, 172mm length
4 stop Image Stabilizer with 2 modes
1 x Fluorite and 2 x UD lens elements for superior optical performance
colors & contrast are fantastic!
Ring type USM auto focus with full time manual override
Circular aperture diaphragm for even background blur
Environmental seals for dust and moisture resistance
|
|
Cons:
|
None
except IS eats up camera battery power buy a spare no problem
|
|
I was about to buy 70-200 2.8 IS So glad I got this ! very happy with the lens and when I switch to full frame. it's a lens I will always keep, I have alo used it with canon 1.4 extender 110 MM-280MM also fantastic F stop goes to f5.6
some pics
http://upload.pbase.com/2bruce/gilling
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006
|
|
Mike Grain
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, very very sharp, 4 Stop IS, weight, AF speed. Did I mention it's sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Without a doubt the best lens I own, even using the 1.4xTC the images are tack sharp on my 5D. Clearly the lens is still out-resolving the sensor!
Shop around in the UK and you can pick it up for under £800. Yes it's a little pricey, but you definitely get what you pay for.
I have the 17-40 F4 L and 24-105 F4 L and this lens nicely completes my 'F4 L' collection.
I recommend it wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2006
|
|
Chuck Kogge
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 12, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, IS, L glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I have found
|
|
|
I was able to trade in my 70-200mm f/4L USM for this lens because it was only a few weeks old and it was a great decision. Although the 70-200 f/4L USM is also a GREAT lens the IS on this lens definitely is a big deal. I have taken shots at night hand heal for 1/10th second (that's good for me). I have taken candid people shots with great DOF. Even at 1/250th IS helps to make sharp shots.
Take all of the above and its size and weight make it relatively easy to carry around especially when you compare it to the f2.8L of this lens series. The only downside is the added price because of the price difference between the IS and non-IS.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006
|
|
john knowles
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
great lens as far as picture quality takes sharp photo
|
|
Cons:
|
very noisy when using image stabilizer and too pricey
|
|
|
Takes a very nice sharp picture on my 400d canon, however i have just sent back to canon as when switching on and off the image stabilizer you hear a scratchy type noise which does not sound normal and also the pic frame tends to jump on some occasions.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006
|
|
JanPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Nov 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
For image quality and IS future this lens is definitely a great deal !!! In all aspects this lens is capable of producing top notch quality image for artist or someone on the road ... I was testing this lens which I have borrowed from friend of mine and I was so impressed I just purchased one for my self. It is that good !!!
|
|
Cons:
|
NADA !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2006
|
|
ladomat2001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, IS, sharpness, contrast, color,
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I sold my 70-200/2.8 non IS and baoughed this one. Why? Because it's much lighter, and you get more usable picture in low light situations - that it is sometime essential.
Also: It's nice, when you forget the weight of a lens, while shooting -it's easear to concentrate on the subject, rather than be busy with balancing your heavy equipement! The only think i am not a big fan og, it's the color of the lens: not real white, more grey and for the price the tripod mount could be supplied... but hey, you never get everything for free, so for that price it's a killer and best vlaue for money - i think.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2006
|
|
selwynroberts
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $720.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight picture quality image stabilliser
|
|
Cons:
|
uk price too high
|
|
|
had to have this lens. I neede a small high quality telephoto for travel etc and this is perfect. The image stabilliser is excellent and the lens is neat and compact. The uk street price of £990 is crazy especially compared to the f2.8 but i think that this will come down making the lens a good buy
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006
|
|
httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 912
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
High image quality. Lightweight. A joy to use.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not especially compact.
|
|
|
This is the first Canon zoom I've held onto for use with my 5D. The image quality is top notch. I look at images at 100% magnification, and have printed test sections of what a 24" image would look like (including up rezzing). The lens passes my sharpness evaluations. Color and contrast are also excellent. The IS works well enough so that I can get critically sharp images at 200mm down to 1/100 or 1/80 almost all the time; no or very little difference between these images and what I can obtain from a tripod. I'm not talking usably sharp, but critically sharp. I previously tried out a 70-200mm f4L and ended up returning it because I found that I needed to use at least 1/500 shutter speed for critically sharp images at 200mm and that limited it's use for me. . . Maybe I have shakey hands, or maybe I have different standards than others, but in any event the IS works for me. Only downside is that the lens is not especially compact, but I knew this. When you add the lens hood, it gets quite large. The lens is fairly light; I don't anticipate problems walking around with it all day. I actually think the price is reasonable for what you get.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006
|
|
Yinxia Long
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,140.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, effective IS, fast focus, excellent IQ, etc. Can't be happier with this lens. Great complement to my 24-105mm.
|
|
Cons:
|
If anything, the IS is noisier than the 24-105. Wonder if it's caused by 4-stop IS versus the 3-stop IS on the 24-105. But it works great so who cares. Oh, it looks really long with the lens hood on.
|
|
|
Just got this lens. It is great. Maybe this is telling: I found it hard to take it off and put the 24-105mm back on as the carry-on. This is one sharp lens!
I was deciding between the f/2.8 IS and this one and did a lot of research before pulling the trigger. The weight difference was the swaying factor. I tried to handhold a 5-lb bag of flour and decided right then and there that I would not want to lug such a weight around. And the f/2.8 on a Rebel xti weighs more than the bag of flour! I knew it's a trade-off: I wouldn't get the kind of portrait background as the f/2.8 can give. But I decided it would be worth it: I'd rather have a lens that I care to use a lot than one that I admire but must leave home.
I don't think the price is unreasonable. After all, the price difference between the IS version of the f/2.8 and the non-IS version is about the same.
I was, however, a little surprised at the noise made by the IS. It is definitely noisier than the IS on my 24-105mm. While one need to put his ear to the lens body of the 24-105 to detect the whirring IS of the 24-105mm, one can clearly hear the IS working in the 70-200 from behind the camera looking into the viewfinder. But this may not be a totally bad thing: one need not have to double check to see if he has the IS on or off.
One last thing, it isn't that white and shiny; it is not the kind of attention grabber that a high gloss white would be. It has this nice greyish-yellowish hue to it and looks kind of low-key attractive. If one is worried about the color contrast between the lens and the camera body, put the hood on reverse, the lens is half black now. And it's size suits the Rebel xti with a battery grip quite well.
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
221
|
409665
|
Apr 18, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
90% of reviewers
|
$1,080.03
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.72
|
8.76
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
