Apples of the decorative variety with 70-200 f4 L

[coldrain]

Small apples in late autumn... low light, partly overcast.
EF 70-200 f4 L USM at 200mm x 1.6 x 1.7 = ~544mm (135 film equivalent), ISO 800, f4, 1/100 sec.

Needed a bit of sharpening (USM 120/1/0) (but at ~544mm with 1/100 sec handheld, not bad...).

[coldrain]

A different kind of decorative apple... sunnier autumn day, at 200mm (x 1.6 x 1.7 = ~544mm), ISO 200, 1/125 sec (yikes.. handheld), f4.5

[coldrain]

200mm (~544mm 135film equivalent), ISO 800, 1/125 sec handheld, f4.

[n20capri]

<----headed to lunch room for an apple!

Very nice...I was thinking about that lens next!

[coldrain]

200mm (544), ISO 200, 1/250 sec, f4.0

Very summery autumn colours...

[coldrain]

<----headed to lunch room for an apple!

Very nice...I was thinking about that lens next!
It is a good lens, but don't base your decision on my photos...
They are all taken with the Soligor 1.7x tele converter. And with ridiculously low shutter speeds (the TC robs light of course), I have no idea how I get away with that.

It is a good lens, nice colour and nice contrast, and a very nice bokeh, but I did not use it all that much before I had my 1.7x TC... it just was not long enough for what I apparently like. Also, I would save up for the IS version, as it is sharper... has 4 stops IS, all over improved optics, and it is weather sealed to boot.
So... if you can afford it, by all means consider the more expensive IS version, as it is one of the best tele zooms money can buy.

[n20capri]

It is a good lens, but don't base your decision on my photos...
They are all taken with the Soligor 1.7x tele converter. And with ridiculously low shutter speeds (the TC robs light of course), I have no idea how I get away with that.

It is a good lens, nice colour and nice contrast, and a very nice bokeh, but I did not use it all that much before I had my 1.7x TC... it just was not long enough for what I apparently like. Also, I would save up for the IS version, as it is sharper... has 4 stops IS, all over improved optics, and it is weather sealed to boot.
So... if you can afford it, by all means consider the more expensive IS version, as it is one of the best tele zooms money can buy.

Thanks for the advice I was def checking that one out too but was wondering if the IS was worth the extra money...Also checking out the Sigma 50-150 F2.8...which is about $100 more than the standard F4L but $300+ less than the IS version...much faster but but only 150mm...then you got the 70-200 F2.8 sigma for $100 less than the F4L is...I know the IS will help at 200 but overall I'm thinking I want the faster lens....choices choices...haha.

[Prospero]

You really are proud of your handholding skills, aren't you :D

Great shots as usual. Beautiful colours. I like the second one best, very nice composition and bokeh. I don't really like the lighting in the first, though.

[AdamW]

Great shots as usual. Beautiful colours. I like the second one best, very nice composition and bokeh. I don't really like the lighting in the first, though.

My thoughts exactly. Prospero got it in there first!