Anyone own the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM?

[NaOH]

Looking to get a new telephoto and was considering this one for the price. But the max aperature of 4 scares me especially when dealing with that kind of range. Is it worth it to go all out and get the one with f2.8 and IS? What are your opinions. It'll mostly be outdoor photography since I'd be hard pressed to get one of those things into a concert.

 

[PurdueRy]

Are you talking the F4 IS? If so then it has 4 stops IS whereas the F2.8 has 2 stops(or maybe it's three). But the F4 is a newer generation of IS.

As to whether or not the F4 will hurt you....what do you plan on using it for?

 

[NaOH]

There is an F4 that doesn't have IS as well. I was debating to whether save a heap of money and get the barebones tele or go all out and get the F2.8 IS.
Text">http://www.adorama.com/CA70200...searchinfo=EF+70-200mm</a>

It'll be used for a wide range of things, but mostly animals, shows at theme parks and graduation type ceremonies. If I can sneak it into an indoor performance/sports than I would LOVE to have F2.8 and IS, but I'm assuming that is rare a occurrence.

 

[PurdueRy]

I swore I responded back to this...oh well must not have hit the reply button...

I know there is a F4 and a F4 IS. I thought you'd be comparing two more similarly priced models with the F4 IS and F2.8 IS. They are a few hundred apart but the F4 is leagues cheaper than the F2.8 IS.

If you plan on taking pictures of mostly stationary things, the F4 IS is a great option. It has 4 stops IS and is lightweight and fairly portable. It could more easily go on travel and around your neck all day.

The F2.8 IS will do better if you are doing action photography as the IS mostly plays no role there. So the stop advantage of the IS never comes into play for the F4 IS. Keep in mind it is only one stop and this isn't always a big deal if your camera has good high ISO abilities. You sacrifice portability with the F2.8 as it is fairly large and much heavier. Not known to be the best for travel.

As for your examples:

Animals - Depends how fast moving but given in good light F4 IS would be fine(or F4)
Shows at theme parks - All depends on lighting, but given that you'll likely be traveling F4/F4 IS
Graduation - Lighting is probably lower so F2.8 would do better for this situation.

 

[randomlinh]

If you're only going to be outside, I say save your money and get the 70-200 F4 non-IS. It's a sharp ass lens, and wonderful, light, fast to focus.. I got rid of mine because I just need f/2.8 (motion low light) and never used the tele end on my crop cameras (for reference, I ended up w/ a 50-135/2.8). But it was a great lens, only ~$550 used.

If you can swing it, the F4 IS is probably one of the best zooms canon has made. Not too much heavier and one of the sharpest, if not the most, as some say. I personally don't see the benefit of IS for myself on this lens, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for you.

2.8 IS is the dream.. it's heavy as hell, hence my need for IS on the longer end. But at $1500-1700, I dread the day I go FF and want something equivalent to my 50-135.

 

[ghostman]

I have the 70-200mm F4L non-IS. If you're sticking to outdoors, the F4 non-IS is a great lens. But even on an overcast day, I have to set my XTi to ISO 800 or 1600 to get a fast enough shutter speed. The grain isn't a huge issue since there's enough light, but I would like to be able to stay below ISO 800. It's also a lot smaller and lighter than the F2.8 versions.

But the F4L's downfall is indoors. Even if you have to use telephoto once indoors, you'll be frustrated with the experience. When I brought it to a recent graduation ceremony and used Av mode, all the shots of the graduate walking across the stage were unacceptable. I had to set it to manual mode and use ISO 1600 (max on XTi), f/4 and 1/250 to get shots that didn't have excessive blur from the user moving or my own shaking. At those settings, the photos were slightly underexposed and had to be bumped up in post processing. This was extremely frustrating and I decided F4 is not sufficient for me, so I plan to get the F2.8IS next year (I already busted my lens budget for this year).

Also, you can't use the F4 lens's autofocus with a 2x extender.

 

[Madwand1]

This are specific cost vs. benefit questions, and as the valuation of both is really up to you, nobody can give a definitive answer for you.

I've like the Canon budget f/4 L from the FD days, where it was a lens I'd love to use for the results, and it was also "affordable". The EF version is an even better value due to its AF and other improvements. This value holds regardless of what other versions have become available at additional cost.

Now, there's also an F/4 L IS which while significantly more expensive than the budget f/4 L, also falls into the "affordable" category for some people. I happen to be in the category where I think that I don't really need the additional weight, size and speed of the f/2.8 IS, but IS on the f/4 would be useful enough to consider buying.

 

[finbarqs]

The weight of the F/2.8 Is incredibly heavy. F4 is significantly lighter! Additionally, the MTF charts states that the F4 IS is sharper wide open (@ F/4) than the 2.8 version. To me, 1 stop isn't that big of a deal. I can just crank up my ISO one stop to compensate for it. But then again, I have the 5D Mark 2... I have the 24-70 f/2.8L, and I dread it. It's too heavy. Makes me wanna get sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 Version (if I really want the f/2.8) or the 24-105 f/4L IS. Everyone has their own opinion about what lens they want, just like I have my own!

 

[shocksyde]

I've got the F4 non-IS and love it. Cheap, sharp and does what I need it to do. I've yet to try it indoors, and I don't plan to ever try. I see no need for IS, but that's just me. If I were to upgrade, I'd get the 2.8 non-IS.

 

[ivan2]

same, got the F4 non-IS, have done outdoor shows and it is wonderful. You need to practice on how to hold it steady, once you find the way that's best for you it can be handhold.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: ivan2
same, got the F4 non-IS, have done outdoor shows and it is wonderful. You need to practice on how to hold it steady, once you find the way that's best for you it can be handhold.

Hand-holding the F4 non-IS is very easy. I can get sharp shots at 1/200 at 200mm on a 1.6x crop body.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: ivan2
same, got the F4 non-IS, have done outdoor shows and it is wonderful. You need to practice on how to hold it steady, once you find the way that's best for you it can be handhold.

Hand-holding the F4 non-IS is very easy. I can get sharp shots at 1/200 at 200mm on a 1.6x crop body.

heh, i would hope so. It's hand holding at ~1/60@200mm that I need IS =)

 

[Adul]

If you are only doing outdoor photography, the 70-200 F4 is a great lens, especially for the money. If you intend to use it in a wider variety of situations, it is worth going with the F2.8L IS model or at least the F4L IS version. Regardless of what you do choose, they all are very good lenses that you more than likely will be happy with.

 

[theYipster]

I agree that this decision is a cost-benefit question that only you can answer. However, if I still had a Canon SLR and could only choose one telephoto lens (money no object,) I'd get the 70-200 F/4 IS. Many regard this as Canon's best zoom lens -- period. Better in IQ at F/4 than the 2.8 IS, with better bokeh, and with a newer IS system that is more effective than it's larger and more expensive sibling. It's also a good deal lighter, and a nice bit smaller, which is a big deal considering a lens of this size. Basically it's the superstar of Canon's telephoto lens line-up (if not their official flagship.) If I could mount one on my Nikon D700 (much like how many prefer to mount the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon 5 or 1Ds,) I would.

Of course, if you need the 2.8 (sport photography at night or in doors comes to mind as primary reason,) get the 2.8. However, if it's just the allure of having a quality L telephoto, the F/4 IS for $1K is the one to get. Note aside from the larger aperture, only the 2.8 models come with tripod collars. If you're looking to do landscape work and use a tripod, you will want to get the optional collar for the F/4 lens -- it's not a weight issue as much as a center of balance thing. It adds to the cost a bit, but it's still a better value than the 2.8 IS if you don't need the extra stop of light.