Questions for owners of Canon 70-200 f/4

J

[J_Gasper]

Member
Hey guys,
Im fairly new to this site, so I am sorry if i posted this in the wrong forum. Anyways, I have a few questions on the lens. It will be on a APS-C. 80% video and 20% photo.

1. How do you like it? I am debating getting this or cheaping out and getting a vintage Nikon Nikkor 80-200 f/4 Push Pull.

2. What is a good tripod collar? It will be on a Manfrotto 701 and 055XB legs.

3. Any regrets on buying the lens in general?


Help would be much appreciated!!!
 
The 70-200 L F4 IS is an incredible lens! I haven't tried the F4 without IS, but the sharpness of the IS lens is nearly unmatched without spending $1000 more. With the IS you can almost run and gun without a tripod. I can even get some usable hand held video with the 3x crop/zoom at 200mm on my T3i.

Here's a sample of it all handheld at F4.
http://youtu.be/aP0FsWIs6uo?hd=1

There are quite a few stabilizer shots where I'm moving in this clip as well and they were all shot with an older 17-35L f2.8. As you can see those shots are no where near as bright, contrasty and sharp. All the vintage lenses I've tried todate are not as sharp and clear as my 17-35L with the exception of a vintage Zuiko 50mm f1.8.

The comparison of the Zuiko and the 70-200mm L F4 IS is here.
http://youtu.be/SkfEdLiDMSw?hd=1

The first half of that video was shot with the 70-200L and the second half with the Zuiko 50mm. You'll be able to tell due to the chromatic abberation of the vintage lens vs. the modern EF.

Needless to say this is finest lens in my quiver and the one I go to for everything but stabilizer work.

Merry Christmas,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
The 70-200 L F4 IS is an incredible lens! I haven't tried the F4 without IS, but the sharpness of the IS lens is nearly unmatched without spending $1000 more. With the IS you can almost run and gun without a tripod. I can even get some usable hand held video with the 3x crop/zoom at 200mm on my T3i.

Here's a sample of it all handheld at F4.
http://youtu.be/aP0FsWIs6uo?hd=1

There are quite a few stabilizer shots where I'm moving in this clip as well and they were all shot with an older 17-35L f2.8. As you can see those shots are no where near as bright, contrasty and sharp. All the vintage lenses I've tried todate are not as sharp and clear as my 17-35L with the exception of a vintage Zuiko 50mm f1.8.

The comparison of the Zuiko and the 70-200mm L F4 IS is here.
http://youtu.be/SkfEdLiDMSw?hd=1

The first half of that video was shot with the 70-200L and the second half with the Zuiko 50mm. You'll be able to tell due to the chromatic abberation of the vintage lens vs. the modern EF.

Needless to say this is finest lens in my quiver and the one I go to for everything but stabilizer work.

Merry Christmas,
Pete
Click to expand...

I am defiantly liking the shots from the 70-200. It will be on a tripod almost all of the time. So the IS really wont be a necessity for me. It seemed to be pretty sharp in both videos. Now one question, do you wish you got the 2.8 version? I wont really be needing a shallow DOF, so I cant really justify for it.

And for the guy that posted above, I have looked into the sigma, but have realized there has been a lot of problems with the build quality and faulty copies. I would rather stay safe and go with canon.

Thanks for the input guys!
 
I went from the 70-200 f/4 without IS to with IS. Big difference. Not the same lens with IS added. Worth every penny. And I had really loved using the non IS.
 
indeed: it's not the IS that makes people tell you the IS lens is better, it's the fact that it's a completely different design with much better optics

for fullframe, I have no doubt: 70-200 f/4L IS would be my choice for moderate telephoto lens (reasonably priced, sharp, and with nice bokeh)

on APS-C, there's no perfect option: f/4 is kind of slow, DoF on APS-C would be deeper than I'd like, but the f/2.8 non-IS doesn't impress me, and the f/2.8 IS ends up being so expensive it's cheaper to just stick to the f/4 IS and upgrade to a fullframe camera!!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2
 
[J_Gasper] said:
Now one question, do you wish you got the 2.8 version?
Click to expand...
Only very rarely when it's basically dark. Most of the time that is indoors and I can grab the 50mm f1.8 for that type of work.

I have an ulterior motive to stay with the F4 though. It is over 1/3rd lighter than the F2.8! I spend alot of time up in the mountains and packing the lighter lens around is manditory.

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
Only very rarely when it's basically dark. Most of the time that is indoors and I can grab the 50mm f1.8 for that type of work.

I have an ulterior motive to stay with the F4 though. It is over 1/3rd lighter than the F2.8! I spend alot of time up in the mountains and packing the lighter lens around is manditory.

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

I climb a lot as well so size and weigh is a big factor. Also 90% of the time I'm using a lens like this in full daylight usually stopped down anyway. The reduced weight allows for a much faster lens like a 50mm 1.4 to be in the bag. I don't have the 70-200 f4 IS yet and using the 55-250mm IS at the moment. Although it's not as sharp as the L grade lenses, I did learn how necessary IS can be and wouldn't go without it. When I get extra cash the 70-200 f4 IS is at the top of my list.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys for all of the responses!


This will really mainly be for shooting outdoors. I shoot skiing, landscape, and mountain biking. So I dont really need to worry much about the lens being fairly slow. Now for IS, im kinda stuck on. Like I said, it will be on a tripod 100% of the time, but is the build and picture quality indeed nicer? It seems like a great lens. Is the IS worth the extra $


Thanks guys!
 
Here's a good comparison site. They have reviews for most Canon and Nikon lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You have to go all the way up to the 70-200 L F2.8 IS II to beat the L F4 IS for sharpness at 70mm wide open. The older non IS is quite a bit softer at 70mm and just a bit softer at 200mm.

From my testing lens sharpness is very important for video inspite of what many say. I use the 3x crop/zoom on the T3i often and the results of it are soley dependent on how sharp your lens is. These minor differences become huge when you tripple their effect. I also think you underestimate the advantage of the IS, especially for that 20% of the time you are taking pictures. It really is amazing the difference.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
I have the 70-200mm F2.8L. It's a very nice piece of glass. I was debating to go with Sigma as it's cheaper. However, many friends including our own photographers said that the Canon L-Lens is an investment. Unlike camera body, L-lens keeps it's values even after few years. So I went for it.

I used it with my T3i. It's a bit heavy. Now I don't use rail anymore so I always worry it gets very heavy. The optics and quality of video is just amazing. Sharp and clear. Also, it's the kind of proud and vain using this lens. People all know it's good stuff =)

Here's some pics.
http://lacoloronline.com/blog/?10129-T2i-plus-Canon-70-200mm-F-2-8L-II-L-Lens
 
I had a budget of 1000 Euros for a telezoom and I recently bought the Canon 70-2000 f4 IS. I was reading a lot of reviews and was having the problem: Save up 800 Euros more to get the 2.8?

Well let me tell you this, I'm really happy I have this lens. Would it be worth it to pay 800 Euros more for 2.8? Depends if you have the money and dont care carrying extra weight around..

I was mainly concerned about low light situations with this lens but so far it plays together really well with my Tamronm 17-50 2.8.
I find myself shooting at 1250 ISO indoors with this lens quite often for documentary stuff to get optimal exposure. But the footage turns out great and for really low light conditions I still have a 85mm 1.4 prime...
Anyway I'm happy I have it and it works for what I'm shooting. It fits in my bag and the weight is still bearable when travelling around (it is an important factor)
f4 at 1250 for all sorts of indoor light conditions works incredibly well. And I never had any complaints that the footage is noisy!
I think I would not get the 2.8 mainly because of the weight and because the f4 works for what I need it for.
If you shoot mainly filmic stuff I think this lens is perfect. With artificial lighting you usually aim for 5.6 in most scenes anyway...
 
Last edited:
c3hammer said:
Here's a good comparison site. They have reviews for most Canon and Nikon lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You have to go all the way up to the 70-200 L F2.8 IS II to beat the L F4 IS for sharpness at 70mm wide open. The older non IS is quite a bit softer at 70mm and just a bit softer at 200mm.

From my testing lens sharpness is very important for video inspite of what many say. I use the 3x crop/zoom on the T3i often and the results of it are soley dependent on how sharp your lens is. These minor differences become huge when you tripple their effect. I also think you underestimate the advantage of the IS, especially for that 20% of the time you are taking pictures. It really is amazing the difference.

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

Looks like you sold me to the IS version!

Thanks a ton everybody for the help, will look out for a used copy soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top