Aer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1569 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4210 times:
I've heard so many good things bout this lens that Im quite eager to see some results and opinions from contributors here. Im considering buying this next summer when I have the cash so, their isnt a huge rush on here. Its amazing how I started out in this photography hobby, initially just to catalogue aircraft that I see but now im moving out into everythigng photography and I can't get enough of it so this is a long term buy im looking at not just to use for aircraft but everything else. Its about €750 online and im wondering how Canon put an L lens on the market for that price!
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
Remember an L lens is not just about image quality, it is build quality, durability, environmental protection. The focising is extremely fast and the f4 is also very light to carry. I would not change mine for anything else remotely in the price range.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4030 times:
No, the 75-300 is not an L lens - different class (optics, build altogether)
The 70-200mm illustrated doesn't have IS - it is the old model now superceded. So there are in fact 3 Canon 70-200mm L lenses floating around -
70-200 f4 - no IS, very good quality and (relatively) light and compact
70-200 f2.8 no IS - 1 stop faster but bigger and heavier
70-200 f2.8 IS - supercedes the older model - has the latest Canon IS (good for the equivalent of 3 fstops)
All are white L lenses, and look superficially similar - if buying online/mailorder, do check and double check exactly which model is being sold - the latest 2.8 IS should probably cost about 3x the current price of the f4, so be wary of any apparent bargains!
I don't have any here with the 1.4 attached - in fact I don't use the 70-200 much at all for aviation photography - I'm lazy and the 100-400 is so much more flexible, if not as sharp.
However, I'm looking at rationalising my system some to release funds for a 2nd D60 - I have a degree of redundancy in my current lens outfit, so I was planning (if the weather's good) to do a comparison between the 70-200, 300, and 100-400 and various convertor combinations. I'll make the results available.
I'm hoping that I find I can afford to trade in the 100-400 and use the 300 and 70-200 with the 1.4 convertor to cover the 100-400 range without sacrificing quality. I've decided that much as I love the 100-400, a 2nd body would be more useful. Furthermore, once I have some digital backup I can feel comfortable selling my EOS 3 which is acting as backup now, but is really just gathering dust.
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
All of the photos in this gallery were shot with the 70-200L f4 except one. Most of them had a cheap 2x converter attached as well. I think it is a fine lens for outdoor shooting and even indoor shooting with a flash. It is very durable, lightweight, and sharp as anything I have seen. The 2.8 IS version would be nice, but for 1300 dollars more, it should be nicer! I may be selling mine here shortly, but only because I need a longer lens consistently and so I'm looking to get the 100-400 IS from Canon. If anyone is in the market for a used 70-200L f4 in perfect condition I might be able to sell to you in the U.S. Not a sure thing yet, but if you are interested let me know.
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3787 times:
I also had the 70-200 f/4 L. Very good picture quality.If you plan on carrying anything else with you, forget the f/2.8. It is too heavy.
Also, you won't be taking many pictures at f/2.8, so the f/4 will be sufficient.
But if you are going to get a converter as well, why not just get the EF 100-400 L, the price difference isn't huge, especially if you get one secondhand.
Lens quality tests, all makes, a must for a buyer:
http://www.photodo.com/, once there, press products, then Canon