Lens dilemma 70-200l f4.0

M

mcwarrior

Suspended / Banned
Messages
130
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I`m trying to decide if i should get this lens off a friend he wants £290.00 for it, but would it be any good for me as i mainly shoot landscapes.
My current lens are Canon 18-55mm is kit., 55-250mm is tele. 50mm f1.8,
Tokina 100mm f2.8, macro, and a recent purchase of a 17-70 f2.8-4.5 sigma.
The Canons i would prob sell to help fund it if i was to keep the 70-200, (as hes let my borrow it for a while) but i'm in to minds if i will use it.

Heres a link to some of my images to give an idea of what i shot if it helps. http://mcwarrior.redbubble.com/
the camera for this to go on is a Canon 450D BTW.
 
Last edited:
It might not help with your type of photography, but it is an excellent price for an excellent lens.
 
One of those sold for £380 on another forum about 2 weeks ago,its considered one of canons sharpest zooms
 
I would say buy it.

I actually really enjoy using my 70-200mm for landscape shots and the 70-200mm F4 lens is sharp as a sharp thing with really sharp bits.
 
Decided to buy it for the asking price of £290, and sold a canon 55-250 to help fund it :)) its a great lens to use, but not sure weather to get a 2x converter for it.
Will this work on a sigma 17-70 ,or a tokina 100 mm macro pro d lens. Ive been looking at the kenko ones.
 
It won't AF with a Canon 2x TC, turns it into a 140-400mm f/8 lens

Might do with a Kenko TC, but not sure which one as they do different models
 
Ditto, buy the 1.4 Canon converter, no loss of IQ/AF or anything, job done

Matt
 
I've used the Canon 1.4x TC with a 70-200 F4L IS and was not terribly impressed with the results. The images had a dull feel about them even in good light.
I came to the conclusion that that you can only stretch a lens just so far out of it's original spec.
If you want a lens to shoot superbly at 300mm or 400mm then buy a prime.
 
footman said:
I've used the Canon 1.4x TC with a 70-200 F4L IS and was not terribly impressed with the results. The images had a dull feel about them even in good light.
I came to the conclusion that that you can only stretch a lens just so far out of it's original spec.
If you want a lens to shoot superbly at 300mm or 400mm then buy a prime.
Click to expand...
With respect that isnt what most people write from personal experience, there was a recent thread that showed 1.4 on a 70/200 had very liitle degradation from original lens. Maybe you had a poor copy of lens or TC?

Matt
 
footman said:
I've used the Canon 1.4x TC with a 70-200 F4L IS and was not terribly impressed with the results. The images had a dull feel about them even in good light.
I came to the conclusion that that you can only stretch a lens just so far out of it's original spec.
If you want a lens to shoot superbly at 300mm or 400mm then buy a prime.
Click to expand...

That goes without saying if it's going to get enough use otherwise I would disagree with that to be frank, these were taken in quite poor light:

I have others (can't find them at the mo) taken in good light and you wouldn't know that an Extender had been used.

Both taken at ISO 1600 on a 5D (Mk1) the second was at 1/45 sec (exif is intact)

mad1.jpg


mad2.jpg


To the OP, some great landscape images have been shot with a telephoto, Ansel Adams Moon over Half Dome was shot with a 250mm Sonnar (155mm AOV on FF DSLR) on a Hasselblad.
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
With respect that isnt what most people write from personal experience, there was a recent thread that showed 1.4 on a 70/200 had very liitle degradation from original lens. Maybe you had a poor copy of lens or TC?

Matt
Click to expand...

As you rightly point out, it's personal experience. I no longer have the TC but the lens seems OK to my eyes:
 
It's all been said, the 70 - 200 is a superb lens but only if you are going to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top