Canon 70-200 f4 L. A couple of questions.

Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,411
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm seriously considering this as my next lens, to replace my Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro.
I have a couple of questions.

1 : Moving from 300mm down to 200mm. Am I likely to feel restricted by it do you think? I know it depends on what sort of photography I do, but at the moment, I rarely go about 235 or so anyway, due to me worrying about it being too soft. Probably user error I think :lol:

2 : I'll also be losing the Macro feature. I've used it a few times, but not on anything I've considered a 'keeper'. Again, if anyone has made a similar jump, have you missed it?

As this is such a popular lens, I'm probably going to sound extremely silly for asking this, but I'll ask anyway...Are there any worthy counterparts to this lens, by other manufacturers? Any that may stand up to the image quality this lens gives, or even any that stand up to its price tag.

Just a few thoughts to be getting along with.

Thanks.

Marcel
 
Im no expert, but have been hanging over the buy button on a lens in this range on a number of occasions now.

It seems to me, that at this price point there are a handful to choose from.

Canon 70-200 f/4
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
Sigma 100-300 f/4 (can be had for £524 from onestop).

My priorities have changes lately, so i have to stick with the Sigma 70-300, but if i was in the market for a zoom right now it would be the 100-300. Everything i have seen of this lens shows that it is ridiculously good value for money. Sharp, fast (well, if you want 2.8 you are gunna be paying 3 times this price) well built and good colour.

The Canon 70-200 is of course £130 cheaper, give or take, but you get the extra range....

Only you can know if you will need the extra 100mm. Personally, i would be absolutely kicking myself every time i felt I needed the extra and had bought a 200mm lens. Thats me though, im never happy, but thats a Yorkshire mans perogative ;)
 
Marcel said:
I'm seriously considering this as my next lens, to replace my Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro.
I have a couple of questions.

1 : Moving from 300mm down to 200mm. Am I likely to feel restricted by it do you think? I know it depends on what sort of photography I do, but at the moment, I rarely go about 235 or so anyway, due to me worrying about it being too soft. Probably user error I think :lol:
Click to expand...

You have answered your own question there Marcel..;)



Marcel said:
2 : I'll also be losing the Macro feature. I've used it a few times, but not on anything I've considered a 'keeper'. Again, if anyone has made a similar jump, have you missed it?
Click to expand...

Can't answer that mate but I would imagine that in time you will be purchasing a dedicated macro lens to cover that subject..:thumbs:


Marcel said:
As this is such a popular lens, I'm probably going to sound extremely silly for asking this, but I'll ask anyway...Are there any worthy counterparts to this lens, by other manufacturers? Any that may stand up to the image quality this lens gives, or even any that stand up to its price tag.
Click to expand...

In a word no!!!!!!
I know we have the third party lenses (which I have had in the past) but white L glass has the edge on any other third party lens ever made. Look at the reviews and the cost of both new and second hand Canon glass.:)


Marcel said:
Just a few thoughts to be getting along with.

Thanks.

Marcel
Click to expand...

And don't forget kerso is selling this lens for less than £400 if you contact him direct via the forums or via his msn..:clap:

PS: Marcel. You are welcome to visit my home and try any Canon L glass you please if you have any doubt in your mind..:)

But beware you will not rest until you have one after the test drive..:lol:
 
Marcel...
I am buying the 70-200L in a couple of weeks from Kerso having done a lot of reading on it (when your'e as skint as me you do more reading than buying!)

One of my new work colleauges has this lens and let me try it out and I was very impressed.

I am in a similar predicament, well not quite...my longer alternative in my collection which I couldn't even give away is the 75-300mm.

The 100-400L is in my (distant) sights for longer reach so as a short term measure I was going to go for the 1.4 convertor which would give me 280mm (but lose a stop of light)
As it will be used mainly outdoors or for well lit indoor portraiture this shouldn't be too much of a problem apart from losing a little poncy blur/bokeh.

It sounds like all you are going to lose i you are having to sell the other lens is the macro feature.

I was truly shocked at being able to get a white L lens in this price range and as Buster says, once you've tasted it it's hard to go back.

Apart from anything else, it looks the dogs danglies on the camera and will get you instant access to press passes and even the Queens' private rooms at Buckingham Palace.

Don't forget, Kerso is your man for the best price ;)
 
Thanks for the replies chaps.

I have thought about something from Sigma, but it just isn't Canon L glass. Now I'm not wanting to be a lens snob, but there must be something immensely proud of holding your camera up with a big white tube and a red ring attached to it..lol (I know I shouldnt but I am superficial like that...I blame the wife, she's too influential).

I did have a play with Jonnys 70-200 f4L at Twycross Zoo, and got a couple of shots from it. Even before RAW conversion, I can see soooo much difference in RSP.

The reason i'm thinking of upgrading is because I have never really been that satisfied with my Sigma. One day it seems to be sharper than a wilkinson sword, the next softer than butter. I did try getting some consistent test results to see where its sharpness lies, but hashed that up a bit. Hence the rarely going over 235mm.

I don't think I'd miss the extra 100mm, especially as I do plan to get the 1.4x at sometime later in the future.

The macro feature, the more I think about it, the more I think it's just a gimmick for me at the moment. I don't take macro shots, and I don't really use it.
Couple that in with the fact its only a macro lens over 200mm, means I only tend to try and use it in very light situations (1/handheld rule), and that I stick at 200mm because I think it goes soft above that.

I know I should upgrade my talent before upgrading lenses (hence why I get inconsistent results with the sigma), but I think going L in this case, will help me do that rather than be a case of me jumping the gun.

I'm seriously convinced this is the lens I want, everytime I use my Sigma :D

Thanks for your offer Tim, a very kind offer indeed.
If I'm ever coming over your way, I may just take you up on that, if only just to have my photo taken with those lenses :D I promise not to roll on them naked like a lottery winner would on a bed of twenties though :lol:

I have the upgrade itch....and I think I'm gonna have to scratch it sooner or later :D
 
Get the L if looking good is your main preoccupation. Around its price point there isn't anything else. I think GCogger at POTN will be selling his as he just got the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 which looks better from his test shots. Worth considering but doesn;t have the length. I dunno what you shoot or what you want the lens for so hard to advise.

The Canon f4 needs good light too often and that's the reason I sold mine. IQ is very good and so is handling and size/weight. Forget TCon use. Hunts a good deal unless light perfect. So, practically, the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a better lens all things considered, having had both, because you get that extra speed when you need it, even if it does lose some IQ wide open.

The 100-300mm f4 is one of the best zooms you can buy full stop, but you need very good handheld technique or a mono/tripod to get the very best results from it. It's one of the nicest lenses I have owned and does a great job with a TCon as well.

If you are staying around the 70-200mm range and have good light then the L is as good as it gets. Need more light then you need the Sigma 2.8. Need the best lens with the most range flexibility then the 100-300mm f4 is the one.

But it's clear what you will buy and why. I wonder why people post these kinds of questions. It's really a waste of time even responding ;-)
 
condyk said:
But it's clear what you will buy and why. I wonder why people post these kinds of questions. It's really a waste of time even responding ;-)
Click to expand...


I do apologise for wasting your time ;-)
 
I thought I was on POTN there for a minute! ;)
 
CT said:
I thought I was on POTN there for a minute! ;)
Click to expand...

:nono:

lmfao

Seriously though, the lens is optically superb. I couldn't care less if Canon had released this lens in black or pink to be honest, if it still has the same glass inside of it i'd buy it all over again :D
 
Ok lads ... I'll leave you to it. Enjoy your photography.
 
Oh dear - this place isn't going to start getting all tetchy and narky is it? Personally I thought it was a sensible enough question from Marcel and can't really see the need for anyone to be sniffy about him asking it.

If you feel it's a waste of time responding on a subject, then simply DON'T waste your time and move on to the next subject. PLEASE don't make the rest of us feel that we can't ask a question that's in our minds in case others simply brand it as "time wasting" though!

As for the original question - I was weighing up the possibility of looking at the f4 rather than the 70-200 f2.8L IS I must admit, but I think the 2.8 will be better suited to what I want to do with it. The fact that I can add a 2x TC without losing AF also swayed me. It's just the hefty price tag that's scaring the bejasus outta me now!
 
Personally I have the sigma 70-200 and it is very hand to have 2.8. I'm convinced that if it was an F4 I would have been f***ed many times over, gotta look at where you will be shooting (dark, well lit?). But like you said theres that L thing and I'm to scared to try one incase I get hooked :D

no question is a stupid question and when it envoles £400+ its not a stupid question.
 
LOL - funny you should say that Ally - I too am putting off the purchase of the 70-200 f2.8L for fear of getting hooked.....scary innit!

I figure that if I'm still convinced its the lens for me sometime in November, then I'll go for it. After that I think the 17-40L will be on the cards. (Annoying I can't do that one sooner too as I have a voucher for it. Oh well! :shrug:
 
Strangely enough, i'm back onto thinking about upgrading to the 70-200 F/2.8 L.

The f/4 L is a stonkning lens and i love mine to bits, but sometimes i cant help but want that extra stop... I'll need to think about it some more but i'm not sure what i'll do :shrug:
 
I think you have already made your mind up Marcel, but theres nothing wrong in asking, some 8-10 months ago I was asking an almost identical question, and knew I wanted the f4 (even ordered one - took soo long to come into stock that I cancelled in the end), but despite that I ended up getting the 2.8, although it took another 6 months of indecision before I finally bit the bullet and went for it. So asking for opinions I dont think can be faulted, after all no one wants to feel that their money is going to be wasted.

Anyway going a little off-topic for those thinking of the 70-200 f2.8 IS, pretty much all the above doubts are why I went for the 2.8 IS, was originally after the f4.

Reasons for going that inch further were:
  • Didnt want to be restricted by light, although f4 is ok, f2.8 is obviously better.
  • The DoF achievable when wide open.
  • IS - specifically because I didnt want to be restricted by the focal length to shutter speed rule.
  • Speed of autofocus.
  • Weather-sealing - although not an issue yet, one day perhaps I will have a pro series camera, and this is a long term investment (I do not plan to sell or replace this now unless for personal reasons).
  • I dont plan to, but it will work with a 2x if I was in a bind while retaining autofocus - I do have a 1.4x for when Im stuck, I hope to be filling that eventually with a more specific lens one day.

However it is considerable high price (to me atleast), the f4 would probably have been more than suitable - however I thought buy the best you can stretch to, and that way you will have all and a bit extra in features - my biggest consideration was that I would get the f4 and crave the f2.8 from then on, so why buy 2 lenses - I went instead straight for the 2.8.

The 2.8 is heavy, although still very manageable - Im only 5'7" and I can walk around all day with it. Also think of that as a reassurance of its build quality, if it was light and plastic I know what the reviews woud say;)
You will get noticed, times Im trying to be low profile and you do feel that everyones looking at you - people do tend to be more considerate - when visiting Edinburgh zoo recently this gang of kids charged up blocking my shot, only for their mother to approach me saying "just tell them to shift", she then proceeded to herd them all out the way:lol: , some people will love this, personally I wish it was black ;)

All IMHO - babble over :thumbs:
 
I got the f/4 from Kerso a while and I love it to bits. Lightweight enough to carry around all day which is the reason I chose it over the Sigma. The extra stop wasn't something I worried about as I don't often shoot in low light and I'm happy to bump the ISO if need be.

I'm looking at getting the 300mm f/4 IS very soon and thought about selling the 70-200 to help fund it - but I just couldn't part with it...
 
I'll chime in and ditto what most other folks have said

The f/4 in good light is a winner. It's light enough to haul around all day, sharp, excellent IQ, and focuses nice and quick.

Having said all of that, the Siggy 2.8 is well worth a look. If I didnt already have the f/4, I would be tempted. I think the only downside to the Siggy is the weight. Other than that, it gets some very good reviews.

If the money isnt burning a hole in your pocket it may well be worth waiting a couple of months. The f/4 IS will be released, and I imagine the second hand market will be awash with f/4's
 
I had the Canon F4 but after having to continually bump the ISO up to 800 or more to get workable shutter speeds eventually ended up selling it and getting the sigma F2.8. I don't really need IS so the choice was pretty easy to be honest.

Image quality wise I don't see a lot between them, perhaps the colours from the canon were slightly warmer but difficult to judge really. Like condyk says though if you can live with F4 seriously consider the sigma 100-300, absolute cracking lens.

Weight of the sigma isn't really that much of an issue. Last time I was out it was hand held all day on a 1D MkII with flash about half the time and was perfectly manageable and I'm no weighlifter.
 
Marcel, if your still undecided about the lens, I can let you have a play with my Siggy EX 70-200 f2.8

f4 just doesn't get enough light in when you really need it.
 
digitalfailure said:
Marcel, if your still undecided about the lens, I can let you have a play with my Siggy EX 70-200 f2.8

f4 just doesn't get enough light in when you really need it.
Click to expand...

Actually mate that would be ideal if you don't mind.

I've tinkered with the 70-200 f4, and it would be great to be able to compare them. So I'll take you up on that offer please :)

You coming to Chester Zoo? Or are you workin.
 
hoping to be there m8, i'm just about to start a weeks holiday :thumbs:
 
Has you know i have just bought the canon 70-200 f4 theses are the reasons i bought it,
1)going by my work (play), im still a happy snapper, but if i have the right kit i will feel like a real photograher and i will take the time to learn about my kit and maybe i'll get a little better.
2)all the pros use it.
3)its fast AF.
4)my friend is concidering a accident for me (promised him he could have it when he praryed it from my dead cold hand).
5)Its a great bit of glass
theses might not be very helpful to you, but every time i get it out, i feel like a pig in sh*t thats just discoverd that pork is not food anymore.
 
madpup said:
1)going by my work (play), im still a happy snapper, but if i have the right kit i will feel like a real photograher and i will take the time to learn about my kit and maybe i'll get a little better....I get the point, but if I'd have spent ½ the cost of that lens, I'd be damn sure I'd learn how to use it
2)all the pros use it.lets the scum bags know you've got kit worth stealing !
3)its fast AF.Sigma's HSM fitted to the f2.8 is just as quick and it's a wider lens ;)
4)my friend is concidering a accident for me (promised him he could have it when he praryed it from my dead cold hand). I know some people who can help here, so it won't feel like an accident :D
5)Its a great bit of glassAgreed but imho the Sigma is better value for equal result
theses might not be very helpful to you, but every time i get it out, i feel like a pig in sh*t thats just discoverd that pork is not food anymore.:thumbs: feeling good about yourself and having trust in your kit is ½ the battle
Click to expand...
.
 
Lets resurect an old thread... :)

I nearly bought the Canon f/4 a couple of years ago but went with the Sigma f/2.8 instead and don't regret it one bit - I shoot equestrian events and the extra stop really does come in handy, if only for the DOF (or lack of it).

It is 'slightly' softer wide open at 200mm, but at 70-180mm it's almost as sharp as it is at f/5.6 (it's optimum aperture IMO).

The black Sigma lens doesn't 'spook' the horses either :)
 
As this htread has been resurected...ill pipe in...

Just bought the f4 IS and what can I say......OMG..... IQ is incredible (why I went this route and not the 2.8)

Light, fast focusing and with the current cash back from Canon (£80)....a worth while investement...

Just wish the sensor on the 400D could do it justice now...

Ive been watching this lens since it first arrived on the scene... £990 when released and now with cashback can be had, UK stock for £665...

Dave P.
 
Glad you like it Dave, I bought the none IS F.4 version and the images are crispy sharp..:)
 
i bought the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex hsm macro, i actually used it yesterday, and i might even post a couple of shots from it later.

i love the sharpness, but its just not quite long enough, i think i would have been happier with the 100 - 300, but then i bought the 175 - 500mm to go with it....hmmmmmmm camera shake....

reviews to follow!
 
matty said:
but then i bought the 175 - 500mm to go with it....hmmmmmmm camera shake....

reviews to follow!
Click to expand...

STILL cant get my head around that zoom Matty. Do you have to do a Nzlopi to transport it?

Look forward to seeing what it can achieve though :) :thumbs:
 
i forgot to take my monopod on holiday, so hand-holding @ 500mm....you learn to lean on all sorts of things.
 
matty said:
i bought the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex hsm macro, i actually used it yesterday, and i might even post a couple of shots from it later.
Click to expand...

Any shots with this lens please . I may buy one.

Tar v much
 
some shots with it with 1.4tc on it here:

IMG_9370.jpg


IMG_1572shopped.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top