PDA

View Full Version : Bought the Canon 70-200 F/4L....



XSiWorks4Me
05-16-2009, 05:59 PM
Oh yeah baby!

Went out to one of my favorite spots....put my new glass on....zoomed in...focused and when I checked my LCD....D'OH!

Now I wish i had remembered to charge my batteries....

michaelb
05-16-2009, 06:23 PM
One of my favorite lenses; it rarely dissapoints me - enjoy it.

Spookonthe8ball
05-16-2009, 11:17 PM
Ditto Michael on one of the go to lens. Most people on here charge batteries religiously before any shoot.That is rarely a problem. Flash, camera and any acessories that may be involved. Add that to your checklist before you go shooting is a good thing :)
Sorry you learned the hard way.
Spook

Csae
05-16-2009, 11:32 PM
Batteries!

Its a lesson everyone has to go through at one point or another : P

Great lens, enjoy :)

lukeap69
05-17-2009, 12:02 AM
I suggest backup batteries as well.

te1221
05-17-2009, 09:10 AM
I recently left my camera on in the bag. The live view button got pressed by accident and then the battery died.

TheObiJuan
05-17-2009, 09:34 AM
Ouch, that has not happened to me yet, but I shudder at the thought.

michaelb
05-17-2009, 09:51 AM
I made a "rookie" mistake myself yesterday, one that I almost never do. Left my ISO at 800 after some indoor shooting (that's a high ISO shot for me ;) ). Didn't come out too bad in spite of that though...

And with the 70-200 f/4 to boot!! (I love that lens)...

@ f/4.5...(repost from the photo of the day thread)...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/538141200_HKTgB-XL.jpg

XSiWorks4Me
05-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Ditto Michael on one of the go to lens. Most people on here charge batteries religiously before any shoot.That is rarely a problem. Flash, camera and any acessories that may be involved. Add that to your checklist before you go shooting is a good thing :)
Sorry you learned the hard way.
Spook

I am usually SO religious about checking all this stuff...must have been the sheer excitement....The good news is the batteries are all charged now and the weather is gorgeous here in Vancouver. Time for a walk around Stanley Park to see what I can see!

Csae
05-17-2009, 01:08 PM
Just a warning, don't point in even remotely towards a kids park.

FLiPMaRC
05-18-2009, 08:03 AM
Just a warning, don't point in even remotely towards a kids park.

Speaking from experience? :p :D Kidding dude ;)

adam75south
05-18-2009, 08:21 AM
one time i forgot to turn my camera off after cleaning the sensor the night before a shoot....so when i got to the shoot both batteries in my grip were completely dead. the camera would turn on but wouldn't do anything.

Flossmoor40D
05-18-2009, 10:29 AM
I just picked up the same lens last week. Gave it a good workout at my daughters soccer game on Saturday. Took over 200 shots during the game. The only misses were due to me not hitting my focal point properly. I love this lens. I guess what they say is true, once you get an L you don't want to use anything else.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/3540457558_c20bd8d8dc_b.jpg

faisal
05-18-2009, 10:58 AM
Talking about batteries...I just got myself 8 eneloop batteries for $18....feels good to get something cheap for once... :D

Btw....I can't imagine buying the 70-200mm without IS....but two people seem to have bought it and michael loves his....is hand holding this lens that easy???

cdifoto
05-18-2009, 11:18 AM
Btw....I can't imagine buying the 70-200mm without IS....but two people seem to have bought it and michael loves his....is hand holding this lens that easy???
It's lightweight so it all boils down to your shutter speed and handholding tolerance.

Flossmoor40D
05-18-2009, 11:31 AM
Btw....I can't imagine buying the 70-200mm without IS....but two people seem to have bought it and michael loves his....is hand holding this lens that easy???

Faisal, I think the key to this lens is understanding the limitations of it. It will never be a good low light lens, nor will you be able to use it much indoors, without flash or secondary lighting. Outside in decent light it is spectacular. The shot above from the soccer game was taken on a morning when the sun was popping in and out at f/4, ISO 100.

I took 200 shots of the soccer game, most with much more action involved than the one above and did not have any trouble handholding the lens. I did sit on the ground with my left leg propped up (foot flat on ground) and used my left knee as a little bit of a bi-pod to help keep things stable. The 7-8 misses I had were caused by me missing my focal point not from camera shake. I am also very used to holding a 14lb 5 month old baby in one arm so propping up a 3lb camera/lens doesn't really phase me. :p

faisal
05-18-2009, 12:18 PM
I always thought it was easier to handhold a generally heavier lens.....but I also thought that the 70-200mm f4 was just too heavy to hand held at lower SS....I suppose I was mistaken, Even though its not a low light lens, I'd still prefer to be able to take 1/60 SS shot indoors as I like dragging the shutter when doing events as it allows me to keep the ISO low on my 400D.....Anyway I need to go and pick one up to see for myself....

Also I just found out the prices for the 70-200mm F4....non IS : $760....IS : $1275....that's a huge difference.... :eek:

I missed an oppurtunity to buy a IS version for $800 a few months back....the lens was still under warranty..dammit!!! I was busy buying the 10-22mm...I should have looked at the new prices here!!

adam75south
05-18-2009, 02:15 PM
....D'OH!

ok i got one more. last night i bought a bunch of big oranges. two small bags of them anyway. i've been on a somewhat lean diet lately and i've been eating oranges for my carbs since they're quick and easy. anyway, i grabbed one today and peeled it back....grapefruit...all of them...i bought two bags of grapefruit.

faisal
05-18-2009, 02:20 PM
hahahahaha^^^^ :D


Anyway...just wondering...why don't people invest in a Sigma 70-200 f2.8...seems to have good ratings and costs the same as the Canon 70-200 f4....

michaelb
05-18-2009, 06:15 PM
Btw....I can't imagine buying the 70-200mm without IS....but two people seem to have bought it and michael loves his....is hand holding this lens that easy???

I bought the IS version to replace my non-IS, but my non-IS was sharper and I just couldn't spend another $500 for a lens which was less sharp, so I sold it and kept the non-IS.


ok i got one more. last night i bought a bunch of big oranges. two small bags of them anyway. i've been on a somewhat lean diet lately and i've been eating oranges for my carbs since they're quick and easy. anyway, i grabbed one today and peeled it back....grapefruit...all of them...i bought two bags of grapefruit.

:D:D:D Totally sounds like something I would do.


hahahahaha^^^^ :D
Anyway...just wondering...why don't people invest in a Sigma 70-200 f2.8...seems to have good ratings and costs the same as the Canon 70-200 f4....

Many people do, but its just that the Canon 70-200's are some of the best zooms that Canon makes. I love my Sigma macros, but when it comes to the 70-200's I'd go with Canon every time.

Another one from the 70-200 f/4 from the weekend...

f/5...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/540001080_DyCXd-XL.jpg

TheObiJuan
05-18-2009, 11:29 PM
I cannot justify the cost of IS right now on my f/2.8L.
I just shot a run through of a fashion show, the real deal is in two weeks, and I had no problem getting 1/125-1/250 at 200mm.
I do have the option to use the 200mm f/2L IS, but the fixed focal length and weight deter me.

I could not imagine being stuck at f/4, even with IS.
The 70-200 @ 200mm and f/2.8 gives enough DOF to get a lot of keepers and shallow enough to blur distractions.

I'd kill for a 70-200 f/2 IS EF-S lens!!!

Csae
05-18-2009, 11:48 PM
f4 is pretty good, it gives a fair amount of dof on full frame, its just not made for interior, though i would find 2.8 too shallow on full frame for some stuff.

Indoors is another thing, though i wouldn't imagine shooting anything indoorsy of importance without flash nowadays. And they allow those at fashion shows, so i wouldn't need 2.8.

Now, the IS version would be sweet, and would give extra wiggle room indoors, but i can't justify it, i only shoot stuff outdoors or with flash, and i get over 125, outdoors easily.

I wouldn't go for the 2.8 simply because of the cost, i'd rather put that money towards a 100-400 or something that'd have a completely different use.

Maybe a 1.6x for sports, since 70-200 isn't quite enough : ( Though when i say 1.6x i don't mean the 1.4x TC, i mean a 40D or something, a bit more expensive, but better for me in the long run, since it'd give me a 2nd body, and better fps (the 5d is pretty slow, not really made for these sport thingys)

faisal
05-19-2009, 01:27 AM
Many people do, but its just that the Canon 70-200's are some of the best zooms that Canon makes. I love my Sigma macros, but when it comes to the 70-200's I'd go with Canon every time.


But the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is supposed to be good lens as well...at least according to photozone.......and for that price it seems like a bargain...

Rooz
05-19-2009, 02:45 AM
But the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is supposed to be good lens as well...at least according to photozone.......and for that price it seems like a bargain...

it is a good lens and it is a bargain...but its not the best. the 70-200/4L IS is on of the best zoom lens' ever made. it is one of 2 lens' canon make that are so good they give me an itch i cant cure with nikon.

TheObiJuan
05-19-2009, 06:57 AM
But the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is supposed to be good lens as well...at least according to photozone.......and for that price it seems like a bargain...

Focus problems aside, I agree 100%.
The build and focus speed are awesome.
I suppose if I owned a 50D or D700 with focus micro-adjustment, I would still own it.

24Peter
05-19-2009, 10:02 AM
FWIW - I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS and then switched to the IS-version. The difference in sharpness was almost imperceptible (the smallest edge to the non-IS version.) And for me, having IS made the lens [much] more useable depending on the situation, so it's worth the cost.

XSiWorks4Me
05-19-2009, 10:25 AM
There was certainly some fun had in Stanley Park!

This lens is everything I wanted in a zoom. The IS version was another $500 and since I came from the (ewww) 75-300mm without IS, I kind of had a sense of what I could and couldn't get away with.

To top it off, the store I bought it from, threw in a Tiffen CP Filter with the lens...AND gave me a great deal on a Tiffen ND Grad filter for my 18-55.

They also took my (again ewww) 75-300 on trade and giving me a decent value for it!

One question for you all now....

Since I lost a bit of focal length....I don't mind really...who out of you have invested in the EF 2X Extender...and if so, is it worth the $500 CAD?

faisal
05-19-2009, 10:28 AM
You can't auto focus with a 2x tele converter on a 70-200 F4....you should look into a 1.4x...

XSiWorks4Me
05-19-2009, 10:34 AM
You can't auto focus with a 2x tele converter on a 70-200 F4....you should look into a 1.4x...

That was FAST!

Thanks sir, I will look into it!

That's why I asked here, it's 9:33 AM and ugly cloudy today (so far) supposed to be gorgeous this aft and Lynn Creek Park beckons. Maybe I will drop by the store and check it out (hmmmm they do rent!)

24Peter
05-20-2009, 10:39 AM
AF works with my Kenko 2X TC and 70-200 F4 IS on my 40D no problem... You just need a TC that doesn't report the apeture value to the camera. The cheaper Tamron & Kenko TC's don't.

laydros
05-21-2009, 12:31 PM
it is a good lens and it is a bargain...but its not the best. the 70-200/4L IS is on of the best zoom lens' ever made. it is one of 2 lens' canon make that are so good they give me an itch i cant cure with nikon.

I realized I would rather have a couple of fast primes for low light, and Canon is the only one offering the 70-200 f/4s. Not to mention the fact that they are 2 of the sharpest zooms on any brand.

gilly
05-21-2009, 12:40 PM
Honestly I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 70-200L range. Killer bunch of zooms, the 2.8 IS will be with me for life!

TheObiJuan
05-21-2009, 01:46 PM
I don't care to bash Nikon, but I just compared the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 70-200 f/2.8L to the Nikon counterparts: 17-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8; boy was I surprised!
The Canon's blew the Nikons out of the water.
I did the test because the paper I work at shoots Nikon and has loads of Nikon lenses, but I like my Canon gear....so I needed a test to see what I'd loose by converting.

Nikon still rules with flash. I set off and controlled 4 flashes (SB800, SB600, SB24, SB24) with nothing but the built in camera controls.
Kudos to Nikon.

faisal
05-21-2009, 01:57 PM
Glad to know that at least Canon glass out classes Nikon....makes me feel a little better about Canon now....

TheObiJuan
05-21-2009, 05:04 PM
The AF on this 17-35 is annoying too. It squeals like a pig when focusing!
The 80-200 is quiet, but slowish to focus. I have not tried the 70-200 VR, so I can not compare to what their latest offering performs like.

The 16 fisheye is awesome! I find it sharp at f/2.8.

XSiWorks4Me
05-21-2009, 07:57 PM
AF works with my Kenko 2X TC and 70-200 F4 IS on my 40D no problem... You just need a TC that doesn't report the apeture value to the camera. The cheaper Tamron & Kenko TC's don't.

Any loss of sharpness though with the Tamron and Kenko TC's?

I bought this killer lens for it's quality and would not want to sacrifice that for more focal length.

TheObiJuan
05-21-2009, 08:34 PM
I have Tamron, Kenko, and Canon TCs. I find the Canon has the edge--a slight edge!--but sharpness is dropped and CA introduced on extreme contrasts with all of them.
I find with my 70-200 if I am shooting a bird that takes up only the center of the frame and I add on a TC to get a little more coverage, the results are horrible.

If I'm shooting a subject that takes up most of the frame and I want a tighter crop, then the TC really is handy.

Rooz
05-21-2009, 10:42 PM
I don't care to bash Nikon, but I just compared the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 70-200 f/2.8L to the Nikon counterparts: 17-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8; boy was I surprised!
The Canon's blew the Nikons out of the water.
I did the test because the paper I work at shoots Nikon and has loads of Nikon lenses, but I like my Canon gear....so I needed a test to see what I'd loose by converting.

you could also compare the newer nikkor glass. when it comes to zooms, the 14-24 and new 24-70 are vastly different animals and optically have no peer as zoom lens'. the 70-200/2.8VR is the equivalent comparison to the 70-200/2.8L IS, (as opposed to the 80-200/2.8 which is half the cost), and they are pretty much of a muchness. the general consensus is that the nikkor is fractionally better on aps-c, the canon is fractionally better on FF. but to pick a difference between them is splitting hairs.

where canon has the major advantage is f4 zooms and primes. (both of which are my preferred choice lol)

TheObiJuan
05-22-2009, 09:12 AM
I wish my paper had the 14-24 and 70-200 as they offer better range, but the cost can not be justified when before I arrived, all they used was some 17-85 or something like that.
The flashes were all boxed up and the lens collection was literally collecting dust.

talkingdog
05-28-2009, 10:46 PM
Sooo where are the mandatory duck pics