Canon 70-200 F4 L lens...should I 'upgrade'? [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page

View Full Version : Canon 70-200 F4 L lens...should I 'upgrade'?

Mr O

06-26-2006, 06:40 AM

Hello, I'm really in need of some advice before I spend some money. ;)

I currently have the 350D (+ 18-55 kit lens) and the Tamron 55-200/4-5.6 Di II LD lens.

I'm thinking about 'upgrading' my Tamron lens to the Canon 70-200 F4 L glass. My main interests are my son's football, portraits and a bit of wildlife. So my question is, should I buy the 70-200 F4 and sell my Tamron 55-200, or should I replace my kit lens with a 28-70 range with the spare £500 I have.?

I have attached some of my shots to show the results that I'm getting with the Tamron 55-200/4-5.6 Di II LD lens.

Thanks in advance.

Mr O

Football

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2084/img11817if.jpg
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8374/img12309di.jpg
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5927/img12681wh.jpg
http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/3584/img14605dg.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5100/img14772kg.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/559/img14407oj.jpg

Nature

http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/bird1.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/bird3.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/peacockfull.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/peacockcrop.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/waterfall.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/swanfight.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/hols/dragonfly.jpg

Portrait

http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/shireen1.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/shireen2.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/shireen3.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/shireen4.jpg
http://www.aubp27.dsl.pipex.com/pics/shireen5.jpg

coldrain

06-26-2006, 07:27 AM

You seem to enjoy this focal range a lot, so it would be a good idea to replace that Tamron. Those 55-200 lenses are not the best breed of lenses, just cheap and cheerful stuff. The Tamron is one of the better ones, but the Canon Ef 55-200 is the best of the breed in optical performance.

The 70-200 f4 L will make a big difference, in colour and contrast mainly, in sharpness maybe, and in focus speed and silence too. So, in my view a very worthwhile upgrade.

And you could always as a stopover get a Canon Ef 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II, to take over most of the focal range of the kitlens for a very moderate price. It will get you fast accurate focussing, good colour and contrast. For a very friendly price.

24Peter

06-26-2006, 08:48 AM

Mr O - your photos are quite good and show you have good photographic ability. You've clearly honed your skills using basic lenses and are now ready to move up. For a newbie I'd recommend Canon 70-300 IS over the 70-200 F4 L, but from the samples you've posted I think you could handle the L. The 70-200 F4 L IMO is a tough lens to use at times. Though it's lighter than the other L telephotos, it is very front heavy making it a bit difficult to balance (at least on my XT). Also F4 is slower than I thought and I find in all but the brightest light I'm often at ISO 200/400 to get decent shutter speeds. The good news is, my copy at least, is as sharp at F4 as it gets so no need to stop down. If you can test the lens first, that might be a good way to know if it's right for you.

Vich

06-26-2006, 10:54 AM

I confess I only checked about 7 or 8 of your images. All showed real skill on your part but I didn't see a single one that didn't suffer from poor IQ. It's really obvious at a glance. IMHO, this cheap lens is really holding you back.

I'm not personally familiar with the other less expensive Canon tele zooms, but the 70-200 f4.0 and 70-200 f2.8 (I have the first and rented the 2nd for about 400 nature shots) are pretty amazing, particulary for IQ.

You also seem to be stretching the limits of 200mm. For field-play sports, I find even 300mm x 1.6 crop (so 480mm effective length) to be wanting.

The 70-300 IS is also gaining an excellent reputation for IQ as well as usability. It's about 70% more than the 70-200 f4.0L so maybe that's unrealistic for you.

Another serious consideration could be 70-200 f2.8 + TC. A good used 70-200 f2.8 is around $950, not much more than the f4.0 new, and you could add the TC later (or get a 3rd party one).

I've found that (esp. above 280mm EFL) that camera shake can look a lot like poor IQ or focus issues. I don't know if your using a tripod or monopod with a good ball-head, but if not then you should consider it. The IS will help a lot there if you're shooting is "too active to bother with tripods". Even at 200mm, I see visible shaking through the viewfinder and so far (I just got it 2 weeks ago) have used a monopod or was seated so I could steady my elbows on knees.

Oh, I find the 70-200 f4.0 light enough to mount the ball-head straight on the camera - the lens mount is surprisingly expensive!

If it's a simple question "upgrade to 70-200 f4.0L or nothing", then the simple answer is "yes".

Mr O

06-26-2006, 11:25 AM

Thanks very much for the replies fellas. My minds made up, I'm off to buy the 70-200 F4 L. Just wish I could stretch to the 70-200 f2.8, but I think the missus would go a little balistic...:rolleyes:

Vich

06-26-2006, 11:33 AM

Thanks very much for the replies fellas. My minds made up, I'm off to buy the 70-200 F4 L. Just wish I could stretch to the 70-200 f2.8, but I think the missus would go a little balistic...:rolleyes:
Yeah, the f2.8 just looks expensive too - quite the constant reminder. Be sure to remind her it's an investment, not an expense! :rolleyes:

DonSchap

06-26-2006, 11:37 AM

JTL

06-26-2006, 11:39 AM

Gotta agree with Don here...if you're looking for a dramatic improvement...it's the way to go...

Jason25

06-26-2006, 11:40 AM

Thanks very much for the replies fellas. My minds made up, I'm off to buy the 70-200 F4 L. Just wish I could stretch to the 70-200 f2.8, but I think the missus would go a little balistic...:rolleyes:
She'll be ok once she sees the great photos of your son :D

Mr O

06-26-2006, 12:22 PM

then upgrade!

As nice as the EF 70-200 f/4 USM is... it is basically an outdoor lens... w/o IS.

If you want a "full-time" player, the EF 70~200 f/2.8L IS USM is the choice of the game. No shake and killer everything... this is an upgrade.

May I suggest you check out this link below before you go traipsing off to buy anything:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=184213
Thanks for your reply. I hear what you're saying and I read through the posts in your link. As much as I'd love the f/2.8 L I just can't justify spending that amount of money...yet. I think my best option is to get the F4 L, save up then trade it in for the f/2.8 L.

Thanks again.

Vich

06-26-2006, 12:40 PM

Thanks for your reply. I hear what you're saying and I read through the posts in your link. As much as I'd love the f/2.8 L I just can't justify spending that amount of money...yet. I think my best option is to get the F4 L, save up then trade it in for the f/2.8 L.

Thanks again.
I have to agree. While I don't advocate buying junk that'll just cause frustration for the hobby, I do buying very good albiet lower-end stuff that will hold it's value. The f4.0 has a real advanantage of being a lot lighter and more portable too.

One think I just cringe at is hearing that someone doesn't have enough $$ for the higher model, then they head on down to Ritz Camera and pay 20% too much + sales tax. They've just thrown away about 1/2 the $$ it would take for that upgrade.

Poor Ritz camera. The reality is, it's your money as well as your opportunity for that upgrade. Wait a week for your goods with BHPhotoVideo.com and save towards your next purchase.

Mr O

06-26-2006, 12:57 PM

Wait a week for your goods with BHPhotoVideo.com and save towards your next purchase.
Yep, that's what I'll be doing. Although won't be from BH as I'm in the UK...;)

aparmley

06-26-2006, 05:40 PM

Thanks for your reply. I hear what you're saying and I read through the posts in your link. As much as I'd love the f/2.8 L I just can't justify spending that amount of money...yet. I think my best option is to get the F4 L, save up then trade it in for the f/2.8 L.

Thanks again.

I agree - thats a great way to do it - buy the 4.0 - you should be able to get $500 for it used at a later date. save up $600. sell the 4.0 and get the 2.8. . . save up another 600-700 and then sell the 2.8 and get the 2.8 IS. this way it only costs you $650 [approx.] at a time - HSN likes to call this strech pay! :D

I agree with Vich and Peter. I find 300mm lacking for a lot of back yard birding and I'd image it would be pretty limiting on decent sized pitch [thats for you CW]. So I can only image what 200mm would be like. . . F4 can be limiting at times and IS can help that out a bit depending on what you are shooting - IS won't help out on bit if you are wanting to freeze action - but that 70-300 IS has a cool feature - Panning IS - I'd image you could get some cool shots with some practice with this feature. . .

I was considering the 70-200 F4 as well as the 70-300 IS. Both have strong points and weak points. . . even the 70-200 IS has a few week points. . . find out what weak points you can live with and there ya go!

Vich

06-26-2006, 05:54 PM

I agree - thats a great way to do it - buy the 4.0 - you should be able to get $500 for it used at a later date. save up $600. sell the 4.0 and get the 2.8. . . save up another 600-700 and then sell the 2.8 and get the 2.8 IS. this way it only costs you $650 [approx.] at a time - HSN likes to call this strech pay! :D

I agree with Vich and Peter. I find 300mm lacking for a lot of back yard birding and I'd image it would be pretty limiting on decent sized pitch [thats for you CW]. So I can only image what 200mm would be like. . . F4 can be limiting at times and IS can help that out a bit depending on what you are shooting - IS won't help out on bit if you are wanting to freeze action - but that 70-300 IS has a cool feature - Panning IS - I'd image you could get some cool shots with some practice with this feature. . .

I was considering the 70-200 F4 as well as the 70-300 IS. Both have strong points and weak points. . . even the 70-200 IS has a few week points. . . find out what weak points you can live with and there ya go!
Here's (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=184213)an interesting POTN thread. Nearly as many have the expensive 70-200 f2.8 IS as the f4.0 version. The f2.8 (non-IS) is actually least popular, by a third!

The more I use IS, and the more I read others' opinions on it in the tele environment (200mm and above, but expecially those in the 400mm + range) make me think it's irreplacable. I just think of looking through powerful binoculars and watching it bounce, probably similar to 400mm on a 1.6x crop. Really bouncy, even on a tripod.

I don't think I'll sell my 70-200f2.8, but I think I'll be wanting a long tele IS lens some day. Maybe the 100-400L IS, maybe a prime (300mm f4.0IS + TC). If I were into sports or nature photography, I think one of these would be on my Christmas list - whatever it was, I think 400mm would be far more satisfying than 300mm - and at 400mm IS would become a necessity.

DonSchap

06-26-2006, 06:07 PM

claim your lens was... uh, broken and in need of replacement.

13217

Then get your IS replacement. LOL. Delivered. :rolleyes: Not everything is bulletproof. 'Superman returns' Jimmy Olsen's Canon...

cdifoto

06-26-2006, 06:35 PM

If/when I get a few weddings under my belt, my 2.8 non-IS will be sold and replaced by the IS version.

Bluedog

06-26-2006, 08:04 PM

Don't worry as the f/4L holds it value rather well when you do decide to upgrade later on.

DonSchap

06-27-2006, 08:16 AM

Here are a few more links for EF 70~200mm f/4L USM discussion. Sometimes they reveal some hidden issues.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185331

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=181559

I figure "Knowledge is power." :D

Mr O

06-27-2006, 08:44 AM

DonSchap

06-27-2006, 10:54 AM

Check with Calumet Photographic (www.calumetphoto.com), they are international, and find out if they are supporting that -one year, no payments, no interest option-. It may be able to make your 70-200mm f/2.8 dreams come true.

Good luck and may the farce be with you. :rolleyes:

Vich

06-27-2006, 11:10 AM

Thanks for that Don. I've actually ordered the lens now so hopefully it will be here this week.

Reading through those threads I'm still in the same boat. Yes I realialise from reading loads of comments and seeing results on various forums that the f/2.8 IS is the lens to get. I don't think I remember seeing anyone give it a negative report. But the upshot is.....money at the mo.

If I had the budget....I'd have the f/2.8 in a shot.;)
Wise choice! As Bluedog pointed out, it'll hold it's value.

I have to say, I really love this lens! The lightweight portability combined with the versitility of zoom combined with true L IQ really makes this a winner.

As others have, if I ever do weddings regularly I'll get the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but even then, I'll sell one of my guitars before I sell this f4.0 (hey, that gets me thinking, that Takamine is worth about $1800 and I haven't played it forever ... hmmmmm)

Although this thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134372&postcount=3)sort of died, it does show a bunch of photos I got with the 70-200 f4.0 this weekend. Another here (http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/gallery/1574092/1/76140054)from the previous weekend. Did I mention I love this lens!

Mr O

06-28-2006, 11:50 AM

Lens arrived today. :)

Not really goona get chance to test it properly until weekend as I've got another one of my son's football (soccer) tournaments on Sunday. :)

Also, the colour is actually more of a white/grey-ish colour...:confused:

24Peter

06-28-2006, 01:12 PM

Lens arrived today. :)

Also, the colour is actually more of a white/grey-ish colour...:confused:
Oh no - you got one of those colored ones. Better send it to Andy (Parmagedon) right away... he'll know what to do with it ;)
J/K - that's the normal color. The call 'em white but they're either greyish/white or beige-ish/white depending (on what I don't know but have seen both variations.)

Mr O

07-01-2006, 01:26 PM

Took the new lens out today for the first shots. 1st impressions...glad I upgraded. Here's a couple of pics I took of my son's football (soccer) team today. Comments/critique welcome.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2067/img22907ye.jpg
http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/1130/img23451pe.jpg
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/8293/img23487tl.jpg
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/106/img23536lw.jpg

24Peter

07-01-2006, 03:06 PM