Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4L USM  
User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5929 times:

Hi everyone,

since my birthday is coming up, and I am currently looking at aquiring this lens I had a couple of questions about its performance. Is it as sharp at 200mm as it is at 70mm or does its sharpness decrease? Has anyone used it with either the 1,4x or the 2x converter before and how did that work out for you? Sample shots would also be appreciated. Thanks very much.

Cheers,
Sebastian


Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Hi,

my 70-200/4 is equally sharp across its range. The 1.4x Extender seems to be made for this lens ... no visible difference. With the 2.0x you'll loose AF on all non-1-series bodies, so it's a no-go.

Some samples ... random images (don't shoot me if you find some flaws), straight from my RAW Converter (everything set to zero, NO sharpening at all):

Sample 1
70-200 @ 200mm f9

Sample 2
70-200 @ 140mm f7.1

Sample 3
70-200 + 1.4x @ 252mm f8

Sample 4
70-200 + 1.4x @ 176mm f9

Phil / EDDL

[Edited 2006-04-17 01:41:02]

User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5805 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 1):
The 1.4x Extender seems to be made for this lens ... no visible difference.

Great to hear that, since it might be an option at a later point in time. Thanks a lot for showing me a couple of your photos, nice shots.

Is there anyone here who has used both, the 70-200L f4 and the 70-300mm by Canon and elaborate on the differences a little.


Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineMongorat From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 165 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Hi Sebastian,

I currently own the 70-200L IS (2.8) but started with the Canon 70-300mm. I know you are inquiring about the 70-200L f.4 but since I have used the 70-300mm Canon as well I thought I'd give some input. There is a world of difference across the board in comparing the 70-200L to my old 70-300mm.
Everything about the "L" glass is first rate, just as you'd expect. It doesn't seem to lose anything at 200mm, and with the 1.4X TC quality is still first rate. It was my experience that anything above 200mm on the 70-300mm lens was going to yield questionable to crappy results; maybe this was just my lens, but it can't compare to my current "L" glass. You won't be sorry if you take the plunge...

Regards,
Matt L


User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

Thanks Matt,

that's exactly what I expected to hear. With my current lens (Tamron 28-300 XR Di) I hardly ever go above 180mm because I know it won't give me the results I need. So I'm willing to settle for 200mm of L quality for sure, looking at buying the 1.4x TC at a later point.  Smile

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5741 times:

I have had this lens from the day I switched to Canon in '03. I can tell you its top notch.


Here are examples of both the 70-200mm F/4 L and the 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Thomas - Jetwash Images
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Thomas - Jetwash Images



User currently offlineAitek From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

wow, interesting responses, i own the canon 70-200 2.8 IS(love it) and recently picked up the 1.4x converter, i took it to LAX for a couple hours and did not like my results at all, i then thought i had some bad conditions that day so i held it about a week and took lots of pictures with it, maybe i had a bad product(tho i highly doubt it) but i was not impressed, i took it back and bought a light meter instead because they would not give me cash back. i do love my sekonic l-358 meter tho  Wink

User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5712 times:

Quoting Aitek (Reply 6):
wow, interesting responses, i own the canon 70-200 2.8 IS(love it) and recently picked up the 1.4x converter, i took it to LAX for a couple hours and did not like my results at all

My old lens was the 70-200 f/4 L, and I did not get good results with the 1.4x as well. At the top of the range, very soft.

I would suggest anyone that is considering buying one should borrow one first if at all possible. You might like it, but it wasn't an ace-in-the-hole for me.

cheers,
Phil



HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5702 times:

Hi Sebastian,

I bought this lens about 2 months ago and i'm really happy with it. Only thing I miss is the extra 100mm I had with my EF 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM.

Its AF is great, very very little haunting. Very fast(in comparisom to my 100-300). Sharp across the range.

I'd recommend it. If 200mm is enough for you.

All the best with your choice

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Sebastian.

How are you keeping?

I recently purchased th 70-200mm f4 lens and am pleased with it so far. One obvious difference is the speed of focussing, which leaves the older lens far behind and, as said above, there is much less 'hunting'. But it is the quality difference at longer zoom that swung it for me.

I always knew that my 75-300mm IS lens was softer at its longer end, but I felt the quality was very good otherwise. However, before buying, I did some test shots outside the shop and was very surprised by what I saw. If you follow the links below you will see a very close crop of a far distant sign, which speaks for itself in terms of the difference in quality (bear in mind this sign was a very small part of the overall zoomed image):

The 75-300mm IS lens:

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6501&filename=1145347305GRhcYs.jpg

The 70-200mm f4 'L' lens (and with no IS, of course):

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6501&filename=1145347286KyATjD.jpg

(Thanks to John for his great help with all this).

If this were not significant enough, I also noted that part of an image from the 70-200mm cropped very close at 200mm was still noticeably better quality than the same point from the 75-300mm at 300mm. i.e. even though the image from the 70-200mm had to be cropped very small to make it an equivalent size to view as the same thing from the more magnified 300mm image (from the 75-300mm) it was still better quality.

This persuaded me that I was - in effect - not losing the extra reach of the 75-300mm; just take an image at 200mm and crop it very closely. That quality still beats the older lens at 300mm.

Apologies if I have not explained myself well here - if so just get in touch and I can show you some more of the test images.

Take care.

Paul


User currently offlineChrispatton From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5668 times:

Thanks for that post Paul, I think you have just swayed my decision. Would I rather have 50 good shots from the possibilities of 300mm, or 30 great shots at 200mm? (I hope you can understand what I mean?)

How does 200mm suit you around MAN?


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5658 times:

3 (main) reasons for choosing a lens from the L-series:
- sharpness
- fast focus
- little or no chromatic abberation
Other reasons:
- built quality

Reasons why NOT to get an L-lens:
- price
- weight
- colour ( Confused some people seem to care about the colour of their equipment)

E


User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5640 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 5):
Here are examples of both the 70-200mm F/4 L and the 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS.

Thanks Chad for sharing your results with us. I've always liked your shots, especially the ones from the carrier.

Quoting Philhyde (Reply 7):
My old lens was the 70-200 f/4 L, and I did not get good results with the 1.4x as well.

Well as I don't really need the extra range right now I think I will still get the lens for right now.

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 8):
I bought this lens about 2 months ago and i'm really happy with it.

Glad to hear that. I think 200 is actually enough for me. I didn't, a year ago when buying my 300mm, but now I realized that 200 will do the job, not only for aviation but all my photography needs.

Quoting Psych (Reply 9):
I recently purchased th 70-200mm f4 lens and am pleased with it so far.

Paul, I didn't know you got your hands on some L glass. Good to hear. I am actually doing alright, still enjoying my last week off university. Just recently got back from a trip to Florida, which I really enjoyed. Other than that, nothing's really new, just can't wait for the weather to clear up down here.
Thanks very much for your test pictures, I think you made an excellent point. I will try the lens in Stuttgart next week.

Quoting IL76 (Reply 11):
3 (main) reasons for choosing a lens from the L-series:



Quoting IL76 (Reply 11):
Reasons why NOT to get an L-lens:

I do like those pros you gave us. Well yea the price of course, but if you want it you'll need to spend it. I really don't care about the colour, I actually like the white too.

Thanks for all the responses, feel free to still add more if you want to.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello again Sebastian.

I have just been out and the car thermometer reads 5.5 degrees  eyepopping  - and we are over half way through April. And it is raining too! So I too am waiting for the weather to improve.

I was interested to read Ed's 'cons' for 'L' lenses. For me this is key, because the 70-200mm f4 is very reasonably priced for such a lens (I believe there is not a huge price difference between this lens and the new 70-300mm IS), plus it is eminently portable and does not weigh much. This is a BIG 'pro', for me, as it means it will get a lot of use outside of aviation photography - unlike something which would be nice to have, but costs a load more and weighs a lot more too, like the 100-400. Although the image quality is the ultimate factor, the speed of focussing makes you feel you have got hold of something in a different class.

Chris - the lens suits the majority of motives for somewhere like MAN, where it is possible to get close to the action. But also the key for me is that you can take a slightly more distant shot, but have the facility to crop quite a lot of the photo out (effectively enlarging the image) and still retain decent quality, which will be better than the bigger image produced at 300mm by the other lens.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5621 times:

Quoting Flyingzacko (Reply 12):
Quoting Philhyde (Reply 7):
My old lens was the 70-200 f/4 L, and I did not get good results with the 1.4x as well.

Well as I don't really need the extra range right now I think I will still get the lens for right now.

The lens itself is superb, and I believe you will be very happy with it!

Best Regards,
Phil



HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5613 times:

Quoting Philhyde (Reply 14):
The lens itself is superb, and I believe you will be very happy with it!

Thanks mate, I'm very glad to hear that, and I can't wait to get it now.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5610 times:

Results with the 1.4x are soft when shot wide open, but stopped down a stop or two it's a bit better.

User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5602 times:

I've been very happy using the 1.4 converter with it. You do need to watch camera shake though; the extra 80mm doesn't sound alot but it makes a serious difference in terms of susceptibility to camera shake.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Trimbee
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Trimbee



Both at 280mm with the Extender.

Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

Quoting Flyingzacko (Reply 12):

Glad to hear that. I think 200 is actually enough for me. I didn't, a year ago when buying my 300mm, but now I realized that 200 will do the job, not only for aviation but all my photography needs.

I also thought that 200mm (x1.6) would be sufficient for me. Trust me ... if you have xxx mm focal length, you want more ... you won't get enough.

I started with 105 mm (point&shoot), then 200x1.6 = 320 mm, after buying the Extender 200x1.4x1.6 = 448 mm ... still not enough ... now I have a 500 mm lens plus 1.4x Extender in my backpack (x1.6 = 1120 mm) ... guess what? I want more!  hissyfit 

Keep that in mind ...

Phil / EDDL


User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5536 times:

The 70-200 F4 L is a FANTASTIC lens. It was my first "L" glass, and there is no turning back. It's reasonably priced, too.

The following uploads of mine were courtesy of that lens:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg - Airside Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg - Airside Photography



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg - Airside Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg - Airside Photography



Those shots are at a variety of focal lengths - and they were accepted into the database at 1600 wide resolution. That should say something about the quality of that glass. There are NO soft spots in the focal range - it is sharp all the way across.

I recently upgraded to the 2.8 IS version, as I need IS for darker shots. I use it with the Canon 2.0 II converter, and so far I like it!

Drew  wave 



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4L USM posted Mon Apr 17 2006 00:57:27 by Flyingzacko
Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Review Wanted posted Thu Apr 6 2006 12:01:46 by Deaphen
New Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:12:17 by TRVYYZ
Canon EF 70-200mm L posted Thu Nov 14 2002 20:41:02 by Aer Lingus
Comments On The Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III Usm? posted Thu Jul 25 2002 17:19:00 by OH-LZA
EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM posted Sun Nov 16 2003 01:17:08 by Contact_tower
Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 Is USM posted Mon Jul 17 2006 13:41:22 by FlyingZacko
Canon EF 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 II USM: For Airplanes? posted Fri May 12 2006 20:31:17 by DLX737200
The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II Lens posted Fri Apr 21 2006 00:57:36 by Aero145
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Mar 16 2005 01:57:38 by APFPilot1985