I had the original 70-200/4 and liked it very much. By the time the IS came out, I had sworn off zooms :S. Now I have an f4 IS headed my way.
There aren't many 70-200 threads available right now, so if you'd like to share those shots that make this lens special, please do. I'm sure many others would appreciate it, too. Thanks!
the 70-200L f/4L IS is one of Canon's gems, no doubt.. priced very economically for the quality & usefulness.. lightweight, outstanding for anything you can use that range for, absolutely sharp throughout the frame 70mm-200mm.. only thing it is limited by is the f/4 aperture, but it's the trade-off you knowingly accept for the portability.. i was very impressed by the lens, but ultimately i opted for the 70-200 f/2.8 mkII once that came out as I needed all the light-gathering i could get for indoor receptions.
my favourite shots from this lens came from some of the first fashion shows I shot (with adequate runway lighting), all shot on a 1DmkIII at ISO800:
Doctor there is something sharp in my eye. That avalanche chute shot is wonderful.
Surf monkey, those first two in particular really show it off well.
Dave - thanks for confirming that I won't miss the 2.8. I will mostly be using it for landscapes along the Pacific coast initially, and these shots show that f4 still gives plenty of separation of the subject from the bg when you want it.
joekraft wrote:
Surf monkey, those first two in particular really show it off well.
I wanted to show you a mix of capabilities.
The first one is the obvious landscape shot, but it really does shine in this usage.
The second shows it's incredible detail with good bokeh.
The third shows it's no slouch with action. Excellent AF.
The fourth shows some low light capability. The IS helps in these situations.
To be honest, I don't use it nearly enough. It's not my favorite FL.
I prefer wide angle landscape photography and can never get enough length for wildlife.
For most indoor, I prefer a faster lens.
But for travel, at it's FL, it really is an outstanding, versatile lens.
This lens is what I would call okay with a 1.4 converter. Not great, but okay. Focus slows down considerably. Never tried a 2x with it. Even on a 1 series camera, one of the biggest problems I had with the f/4IS is that in the studio it would often have problems focusing with the level of illumination provided with modeling lights. It was much better when you turned the overheads on, but then you don't "see" what you're doing as well. Outdoors, no problem at all. The 2.8II is much much better with converters, and to be honest, even though I have both lenses, the f/4 is now relegated to backup duty and I have not used it once since I got the 2.8. The 2.8 is that much better.
BTW ... how is the AF performance (speed) for the f4 (without TC) outdoors. Is it lightning quick ... or is it 'eh, fast enough for most things?
For reference, I'm shooting the Sigma 100-300/4. IQ is nice, although contrast drops off after 250. AF is quick if you aren't trying to go "full range" ... but not as quick as the 100-400L. Just wondering where the 70-200/4 might fit relative to how "speedy" Canon made it.
I may try one out (rental) on an upcoming trip (Utah) for a two lens/two body approach ... 24L TS-E II on FF & 70-200/4 on 1D MK II N for simplifying gear. Okay, maybe I'll have my Oly 18/3.5 in the bag also.
I may try one out (rental) on an upcoming trip (Utah) for a two lens/two body approach ... 24L TS-E II on FF & 70-200/4 on 1D MK II N for simplifying gear. Okay, maybe I'll have my Oly 18/3.5 in the bag also.
Sounds like a great setup. I'm sure you'll like the weight of the 70-200mm F4IS for hiking in Utah. A week of hiking in UT a couple of years back helped me decide on the lens. For landscape and outdoor work I prefer the F4IS
I should be receiving a 1.4 TC (MkII) and the lens at about the same time. I'll post some samples. There's another post of mine that someone asked to see the same with a 135L, so I'll be posting those, as well.
Nice shots Peter. That second one gives me shivers. In that third one, I like how you superimposed all the buildings and cars onto a shot from 1955
@outlawyer - to me, that illustrates again that this lens handles BG separation just fine. Unless it's a portrait, for my own style I don't necessarily want creamy bg, I like a lot more context to the shot.
Keep them coming folks. Anyone taking advantage of 4-stop IS for interesting long exposures?
Well, now that it arrived, I feel obligated to contribute one. I've only had it for an evening, and am still trying to learn what it's capable of, but here is an early favorite. I'm quite impressed with it's image quality so far. And by favorite, I mean, its exposed well, and in focus. My standards are low
Yes, Robin, I'm learning how to handle the native sharpness of this lens myself. It can be *really* sharp. Nice shot.
Nice one Peter - thought it was the black mountains of AZ for a second, I have quite a few of those from that area that I like myself. You should visit sometime if you haven't. Also, I just posted a thread about 70-200 IS if you cared to comment at all about that aspect, which I am still trying to figure out.
His eyelashes are distinct in this one, though the sharpness isn't really important to this image:
