Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon EF 70-200mm L  
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4078 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!

So any comments are welcome.

Thanks,
Martin

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4035 times:

martin,

are you talking about the F4? or the 2.8? Both are very good lenses, very sharp. The 2.8 is one of the things I want this year...

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4037 times:

Sorry was a little vague there in the lens im talking about. Im on about the
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM



User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the 4 is pretty much the same as the 2.8 optics wise.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3995 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  Smile...

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.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3986 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineVaman From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3945 times:

The F/4 only contains 2ud elements


the F/2.8 has 4ud elements. THe more the merrier.


THe 2.8 is on my wish list

L


User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3910 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.

Read these reviews if you haven't already.

http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_84503_3128crx.aspx

Regards,
Craig.


User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

Heh guys, are you talking about the difference between these 2 lens? (click the link below)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=800657868
and
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=800201772

Can you tell me more about the difference between them? Is it that the L lens has Image Stabilizer and the other doesnt?


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3898 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!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3882 times:


Martin,

There is one of these on eBay now going for 375 GBP if you use the "BuyNow" option...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=801916596

I paid £475 for mine in a local store - I reckon 375 is a steal!

Regards,
Dean



Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3871 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.


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

Jofa - well here's a shot with the 70-200


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin K. Work



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.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Further to my earlier post...it's gone! Too late!

At that price...and judging by the buyers rating I'd say a dealer snapped it up.  Sad




Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

Ckw
Thanks for posting the image, and yeah, such a comparison would be interesting.


User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3808 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.

http://www.pbase.com/mistereman/airshow


-Ken


User currently offlineMikey From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 193 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3789 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.

Mike



Ex LAX, LGB, SNA aviation photographer
User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3655 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

Peter


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 70-200mm L posted Thu Nov 14 2002 20:41:02 by Aer Lingus
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
EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM posted Sun Nov 16 2003 01:17:08 by Contact_tower
Anybody Use Canon EF 70-200 F/4? posted Wed Nov 27 2002 08:48:20 by Ignat
Canon 70-200mm F4L (+1.4X Converter) posted Thu Jul 27 2006 09:12:50 by LGW
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III Vs. Sigma 70-300mm F posted Wed Mar 16 2005 05:16:57 by SkyWestFan
Canon 70-200mm F/4.0L From B&H posted Thu Aug 12 2004 03:53:48 by QantasA332
70-200mm: Canon Or Sigma? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 05:48:31 by Airbus Lover