Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3803 times:
Well, I have skipped the Canon 17-40mm and 24-105mm f/4L USM lenses because the 17-85 is still good enough, and the 24-105 wasn't as good as I expected.
The 70-200mm f/4L USM is still on the list, could anybody here tell me how it is for aircraft spotting?
I've seen many nice reviews about the lens, and asked one ex that-lens shooter, and he liked the lens pretty much.
I'm wondering if it is worth the money...
I've seen somewhere that the 70-200mm f/4 is sharper than the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS and non-IS lenses, so I guess the 70-200 f/4 would be a good buy...
If anyone has test-shots taken with that lens, and is willing to show me, it would be greatly appreciated!
Sleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2045 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
But even after I attached a 1.4 TC, I felt like I needed more power. Unless you're blessed with close proximity at your favorite airport, you may want to bite the bullet and go for 100-400 IS.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
Take a look at the link through my profile: Except for the 20 oldest shots, every one of them was taken with that lens + the 1.4x (with the exception of the MD-11 arrival shot at MIA). Most were taken at 1200 x 800, but three of them were at full 1600 (and appropriately marked as such).
I guarantee you will NOT be disappointed, especially with its relatively low cost for an "L" series lens
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3786 times:
Thanks Tim and Bryan for your replies!
I've tried the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200, and I was so very, very disappointed with the quality....
The Canon 70-200 f4 at f/7.1 at 150mm + Extender EF 1.4x at ISO 200... wow, what a thought. As I use most often f/11 - f/13 on my 70-300mm Canon lens... then the photos are quite sharp...
lol
Regards,
David
PS: I now know who you are, Bryan, you're Mr Peterson! I was looking at your shots today and - WOW, they were sharp!
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 3): I've tried the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200, and I was so very, very disappointed with the quality....
You think the 17-85 is good enough, a lens I've heard pretty unpleasant things about, but are disappointed with the qual of the 70-200 2.8 IS, a lens the most owners swear by???
I don't understand... Could you explain?
Alphafloor From Chile, joined Jun 2004, 1277 posts, RR: 45 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3727 times:
Hi Dave,
The 70-200 f/4L USM is a marvel. Lightweight, the autofocus is fast and silent, there is no IS but at least it saves battery life. I'm really happy with it !! Here are the pictures I got here in anet all taken with this lens.
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3724 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 3): I've tried the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200, and I was so very, very disappointed with the quality....
I think what people forget is that there appears to be a variability with this particular lens. Most examples are excellent, but I have see several bad examples.
I swear by my 70-200 f2.8IS, and in comparing it to other L lenses, I can only say that it is simply the best zoom Canon currently produces (the good examples that it)...
That said, the 70-200 f4.0L is an absolutely brilliant lens, and worth every cent you pay for it.
Glenn
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 3): I've tried the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200, and I was so very, very disappointed with the quality....
Then either you did something wrong or the lens was a dud. The 2.8 is generally considered the best canon zoom around.
I've shot with both the f/4 and 2.3 and there is a difference. Although I haven't really compared sharpness, as both seem fairly equal, the 2.8 is just a better performer. Brighter viewfinder, finer handling, faster AF. If I had to choose I'd go with the 2.8, also works better with converters. If budget does not allow you can't reallg go wrong wiith the f/4 either.
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3679 times:
Yep, I've tried bad copies.
I've seen more than once, and people have been talking about, that the 70-200 f/4 is said sharper than the 2.8 versions of Canon. I know the 2.8's have faster autofocus and bigger aparture, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're sharper.
I have seen much more of sharper photos from Canon 70-200 f/4 and Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 than from Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS...
Very strange.
Maybe that's the aparture of the 2.8's that make them so expensive.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3677 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 9): Maybe that's the aparture of the 2.8's that make them so expensive.
Which is why a 100-400 f/2.8L IS would be so outrageously expensive...
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 11): But - I can't see better than your combo shots with 70-200 f4 are sharper than most 70-200 2.8 shots...
David, bear in mind that those are all finished products, which included resizing and a few rounds of USM. The truth about the lenses themselves really lies in the originals...
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3652 times:
Can you show me shots from your 100-400 - and 70-200, Tim?
Quoting INNflight (Reply 12): It's a fact, as easy as that. There are good and bad copies of both lenses, of course, but still... 2.8 over f4, hands down.
I've seen many press photographers holding the 2.8, but 2.8 IS.
If there would be an IS version of the f4, it would probably be as popular as the 2.8 IS. It would be lighter, and nicer to carry.
@Bryan: Well, then your shots are well edited.
I've been looking for very sharp 70-200 2.8 shots, but I haven't found them yet...
But, I've found very sharp 70-200 f4 and 100-400 shots...
Maybe, the shots out of 2.8 haven't been very well edited, as the 100-400 and 70-200 f4 shots...
But oh well - I don't need the 2.8 - as I will never use that aparture. I also doubt I will use the 4.0 aparture on the 70-200 f4.
Yes: I have a good copy of the 17-85, and have tried bad copies of the 70-200 2.8's. If you want, I could send you one or two orginals from the 17-85, and one or two orginals from the 70-200 2.8 IS.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3642 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 15): I've seen many press photographers holding the 2.8, but 2.8 IS.
LoL.... sorry David, but it gets out of hand. I freelance for two local newspapers, and trust me, the 70-200 2.8 IS for sure is - hands down - the most-frequently used lens.
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 15): If there would be an IS version of the f4, it would probably be as popular as the 2.8 IS
No. The lens is not popular because of Image Stabilisation, it is popular because of the 2.8 aperture!
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 15): as I will never use that aperture.
Midday-sunshine aviation photographer heh?
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 16): I could send you one or two originals from the 17-85, and one or two originals from the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Please don't send them to him - link them in this thread...
I guess so Florian. I guess David would be happy with an f/8 lens. A 2.8 lense will perform much better than a 5.6 lens at say f5.6. Now with low light which lens would you prefer?
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3628 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 17): Hmmm... Tough one... Who to believe? David or Tim ((co-)owner of 70-200 f4, 70-200 f2.8 and 100-400)... Ouch, my brain hurts. So... boggled difficult... faint
I'm getting tired of your teasing.
Quoting INNflight (Reply 18): LoL.... sorry David, but it gets out of hand. I freelance for two local newspapers, and trust me, the 70-200 2.8 IS for sure is - hands down - the most-frequently used lens.
INNflight:
"I've seen many press photographers holding the 2.8, but 2.8 IS."
I was saying this!!
Quoting INNflight (Reply 18): No. The lens isn't that popular because of Image Stabilisation, it's popular because of the 2.8 aperture!
OK - bokeh...
I know of course that you can have faster shutter speeds, but I just never shoot with such a big aparture!
No - that's not existing here in Iceland - at least at the summers. If there are no clouds, there is sunshine 24 hours. But in the winter, yes I'm a midday-sunshine aviation photographer. I'm not trying to win Javier G. in the panning shots at the evenings...
Quoting INNflight (Reply 18): Please don't send them to him - link them in this thread...
Three 20D orginals, about 3MB each, and one 5D orginal, about 6MB I think.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3616 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 22): I would have planned to buy the 2.8.
Christmas is a long way to go... oh, gotta scribble my wishlist for mommy.
Do you actually buy them, or get them?
Don't take it personally David, but you're posting like you are a 30-year old photographer that is familiar with the pro's and con's of the entire lineup.
I'd say slow down a bit, learn and hear what experiences members say. That's the way I started, that's the way you'll get the most out of the knowledge.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 15): I also doubt I will use the 4.0 aparture on the 70-200 f4.
When the sun's at its low point on the horizon (probably reminiscent to our dawn / dusk), you'll need it.
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 21): Three 20D orginals, about 3MB each, and one 5D orginal, about 6MB I think.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
25 Aero145: I've answered you in IM, don't think I am going to answer this here. I have slowed down very much in the past... just to let you know. And - I'm not g
26 TimdeGroot: Nobody here is pushing you to do so, but you imply you are buying the f/4 because it is a better lens than the f/2.8 which it isn't, and that's why s
27 Aero145: I didn't say that the f4 is a better lens. I've tried bad copies of the 2.8's, and I'm surprised. I've seen on the net very many good photos taken wit
28 Linco22: Anyone mentioned price? lol the f4 is a cracking lens. You WILL use f4. Even just because you'll have it! Big apertures doesnt always mean bokeh. Obvi
29 Aero145: Here are orginals: http://www.filecabin.com/up1/1151934764-IMG_8638.JPG This was taken with the 17-85 on 20D, aparture 9, ISO 100, 1/320th, 33mm. ----
30 Linco22: David, shots with the 70-200 f2.8 are out of focus - blurry. Quite clearly to me Regards Colin
31 Aero145: Strange, as of the red aircraft. I was once panning the same aircraft as on the 5D photo with my 70-300 IS at 1/100 at 300mm (x1.6), and the photo was
32 TimdeGroot: Sorry David, but now you clearly don't know what you're talking about anymore. The fact that the image is blurry has nothing to do with the lens bein
33 Aero145: Thanks for this, Tim. I was probably hand-shaky then, but the plane was still. Here's the photo I was talking about, the 300mm shot. http://www.fileca
34 TimdeGroot: Search the forum, there was a good thread explaining this in detail a while ago. Tim
36 DullesGuy: I've tried out the 70-200L f2.8 IS on my 300D and used it at full zoom and the image was clear clear clear! Every lense has a downside, you've just go
37 INNflight: When comparing lenses you should generally use M mode and the SAME settings with the same focal length... just for future threads.
38 Aero145: Yep I agree. However, Glenn got a little un-luck, heat-haze. However, cool photograph. Thanks otherwize for the info! Very good post, thanks for that
39 INNflight: Sorry but "no".... The 100-400's capabilities are over-estimated by the majority here. I'm not saying it's not good, it's just not that incredible as
40 Aero145: Florian. Though your 70-200 2.8 is more incredible than the 100-400, the 100-400 is for example incredible on a 350D body if the owner has just gone f
41 INNflight: I'm not saying which one is better, I just claim (from my personal 2-year 100-400L experience) that it's by far not THAT incredible. Of course it's st
42 Aero145: OK... It's like this then? 100-400: sunshine lens 70-200 f4: sunshine lens 70-200 f2.8: evening lens 70-200 f2.8 IS: night lens -David
43 Aviopic: Loads of color fringing which is typical for the 17-85 and just of one the common problems. A setting which requires the max from both equipment and
44 Aero145: Willem. I was saying that I don't need any better short lens than 17-85. It is still good for me. I've tried the 24-105, and I was unhappy with the re
45 DullesGuy: ok let me rephrase. the perfect combo for ME would be 70-200 2.8 IS and 100-400L. could you expand a bit more?? i cant get enough of these posts as i
46 TimdeGroot: David I don't want to sounds condescending or anything but maybe you want to get a little more experience under your belt before rating those lenses.
47 Aero145: Every lens I seem to use bad? Well, no. My 70-300 IS, 17-85 IS, and 75-300 II are good, so is my Friend's 70-300 DO, 18-55 and 50 1.8. Maybe I've expe
48 Sulman: The 70-200 F4 L works very nicely with the 1.4 extender. It's been discussed extensively here. James
49 Aero145: Oh. I haven't seen that, though I've searched, thanks James! Regards, David
50 Aviopic: From my own experience the 17-85 is the worst I've ever used and I would take any third party lens over it. There is a "red" line around the front an
51 Aero145: Hi Willem. "- Comparing lenses takes equal situations and equal camera's." Thanks, but I was told this in this thread before "Preferably side by side.
52 Scottieprecord: Hey David, I own the 70-200 f/4L + 1.4 extender and I just recieved my 100-400 L IS. The 70-200 is an awesome lens, but like Tim said in reply #1, the
53 Glennstewart: Bad 70-200 example. I've used many a 100-400 and 70-200. The 70-200 is a far superior lens!!! I could provide you with examples - but all forms of th
54 UA935: Have another look at the image! The unlucky heat haze as you put it is coming from the engines! Aircraft don't tend to take off very well when the en
56 Glennstewart: And being a winter shot, if I did get heat haze - I would have been unlucky. But yep.... this is from the engines. Can't do much about that.
58 INNflight: Pretty sure Simon isn't What's the point of this thread anyway... (not a question)[Edited 2006-07-04 13:41:02]
59 UA935: No I am saying that people have given a vast amount of information in this thread yet you do not seem to be considering any of it. You seem to have m
60 Aero145: Who is Simon? And why should he be a question? If "What's the point of this thread anyway..." isn't a question, why are you saying this? Ignoring: no.
61 Aero145: I see the haze the engines did make, and I wasn't talking about that. I have to get a new screen, this doesn't show the photos as they are in real...
62 INNflight: I somehow feel I shouldn't bother but again... - Simon is UA935... - HE isnt a question... I said (...asking a question)
64 Aero145: This is a question: "Why ask as you seem to know it all already?" And this is pretty good to have "!" in the end: "You seem to know it all already, so
65 VirginFlyer: This thread is going nowhere quickly, so it is now locked. V/F
Sponsor Message: 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2045 posts, 
As I use most often f/11 - f/13 on my 70-300mm Canon lens... then the photos are quite sharp...
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jun 2004, 1277 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
