Aer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1522 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2562 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!
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
Dont think it is really the same, but quality might be comparable. 2.8 glass has a much larger surface offcourse. But I think you knew that and meant the quality ...
great, lens, and the F4 is very sharp and reasonably cheap for the quality you get. Allthough being a stop slower then the 2.8, still quite a fast lens.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2470 times:
I had one and its a fine lens - traded it in for the 2.8 version with IS as I have a need for low light capability, but optically, I can't detect a difference - both are sharp as a tack.
I guess the low (!) price is due to the difficulting in shifting units due to the 2.8 IS - definitely worth the money. Works very well with the 1.4 extender as well.
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2394 times:
Martin,
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, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2382 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The 70-200mm illustrated doesn't have IS - it is the old model now superceded.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!
Jofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
Ckw
"traded it in for the 2.8 version with IS"
Can you post sample pics taken with your 70-200 f2.8 IS and perhaps also with the 1.4 converter attached.
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: 2 Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2292 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.
Mikey From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 193 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2273 times:
I have the 70-200L f4. This the cheapest L-lense that you can buy. It is great for taking pictures taken through a fence since the focusing is done inside the lense.
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2139 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
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1522 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
...
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 1999, 1006 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, 
From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
