 Perfect on-the-go lens |
| Review Date: July 22, 2005 |
| Reviewer: Michael C. M. Chow, Honolulu, HI USA |
I have to say, "Wow I like this lens."
I'd recommend this lens for three kinds of people:
1) People who want to get a taste of the L-series lenses who need a lens in the 70-200mm focal length moderately on the cheap;
2) People who already own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens who have to lug that huge thing around for a long time;
3) People who want a L-series 70-200mm lens who don't NEED f/2.8 or IS.
Call me a wimp, but shooting 1000-2000 shots a day in the field with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS gets tiring, especially if you're hand-holding. This lens is moderately inexpensive for being L-series glass, the variation in optical feature is nearly imperceptible from the f/2.8, and it's sturdy and ergonomic enough to use all day long.
When I plot on shooting the whole day, especially over the course of numerous days, this is the lens I take with me, NOT the f/2.8 IS. It's shorter, narrower, and lighter. While you may not feel the variation when shooting for a couple of hours, take two people of equal endurance and might and give them the f/4 and f/2.8 IS and send them out for a day and you know who is going to come back with the sore arms when the day is over.
On a 1.6x FOVCF body, the 70-200mm focal range makes this lens a small tight; but at 1.3x or 1.0x FOVCF, this focal length range is quite awe-inspiring. When I travel, I like to pair this lens with the 17-40mm f/4 and use my feet to fill the gap linking 40 and 70mm (I also take along el-cheapo 50mm f/1.8 so I can shoot in low light, and the 1.4x teleconverter to give myself an unassailable 450mm reach) -- all of this is a excellent, lightweight, moderately inexpensive wrap. Also, while being quite a chunk of pocket change, this lens is nowhere near as expensive as the f/2.8 versions, and so it's a lot less of something to worry about when roving or shooting under adverse conditions.
As so far, I have found Not anything that I do not like about this lens (well, except for the one-stop loss from f/2.8).
I have to say that if you are looking for a single lens to do All-function Function work, this is not it. This lens is for specfic purposes. This lens works best as one-half of a pair, taking the upper useful focal lengths, while you use something like the 17-40mm f/4L or the 24-70mm f/2.8L to handle lower range of focal lengths. If you're looking for a carry-the world over never-change lens, try the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. It's a fantastic value, the focal length range is in the sweet spot, and the optics are not terrible.
Otherwise, if you fit into one of the three categories at the commencement of this post, I would highly recommend this lens to you. |
Excellent Lens but......
|
| Review Date: August 7, 2006 |
| Reviewer: R. Robillard, Virginia Beach, VA |
Like many people my choice on a telephoto zoom lens came down to buying the Canon 70-200mm f/4L or the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The trade offs seemed clear at first. The former performs slightly better (see Canon website for MTF data), is better designed & built, is quicker and has the "L" lens status. User observations and ratings (at more than one site) are slightly more propitious for the L lens. The 70-300mm has an improved IS and of course a longer focal length. Both cost about the same so money was not a factor in my choice.
I eventually chose on the L lens and was at the start disappointed. Photos ranged from wonderful to not very excellent at all. In fact, I nearly returned the lens. Eventually I figured out the riddle. My yard is heavily shaded so most of the initial photo's were taken in low light and I had elected shutter speeds that were too slow. To avoid camera shake you need to shoot at the reciprocal of the focal length or quicker. Sounds simple but with the Digital Rebel XT (which I was using) you need to deliberate the camera's 1.6 multiplication factor. So at 200mm you need a shutter speed of 1/320 or quicker not 1/200 like I at the start thought. Once I made the speed adjustment things changed for the better.
Still I have some mixed feelings about my choice. When the light is excellent this is a fantastic lens but with the IS feature offered on the 70-300mm I would doubtless get photos that I will miss with this lens.
I can't fault the performance of this lens for its limitations and I have given it 5 stars. In other words it does what it is supposed to do very well but my message to other buyers is to deliberate where you are most likely to use the lens before buying. Dredge up IS becomes increasingly vital as you extend the focal length. If your camera is already extending it by a factor of 1.6 you may find IS a very attractive feature.
(Note the 70-300mm has a recall on particular model numbers since of problems when using the lens in a portrait position.) By the way, I bought from Amazon and it was a flawless transaction! |
On fantastic lense for sports photography
|
| Review Date: August 6, 2003 |
| Reviewer: J. Harris, Hagerman, NM United States |
| I like this lens! Every year, I shoot a two-day 4-on-4 flag football game. With this lens, I consistently capture better photos than the other photographers with longer lenses. At f/4, it's quick enough to give you all the flexability in the world. Since it's a continuous aperature throughout the length of the zoom range, your focus ruins nearly continuous, so that you can cheat and get away with changing the zoom after you've got a focus lock. While it's right that this lense will never "grow up to be" the f/2.8 70-200, at half the wieght and half the cost, it's worth it if you're looking at lugging around your camera for hours on end. ...P>One Warning: If you've never shot with a Canon Professional lens ('L' series lenses), you're in for a real treat. You'll have a very hard time explanatory buying anything for your Canon's in the future that's not an 'L' lens, and that can get VERY expensive. |
Canon's Reasonably priced All-Function "Stud"
|
| Review Date: January 22, 2007 |
| Reviewer: R. Lee, California |
Like many aspirant amateur photographers I've "climbed the ladder" of Canon lenses in search of the lens (or set of lenses) that best fit my shooting needs. I've been leaning toward sports and nature, with only a sprinkling of portrait and macro photos, thus I've bought and used the range of Canon's telephoto zoom lenses. You can nearly compare them as if you were shopping for a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV), where type of use, speed, price, and durability will be your deciding factors. Here are my summarized thoughts on three of the more standard telephoto zoom lenses:
70-300 IS - (Ford Explorer) - Huge zoom, least expensive of the bunch, handy Image stabilization, fantastic for open-air sports, but slower AF than the rest. May be "sharp" enough for your needs, though discernibly less so than an L series lens.
70-200 F/4 - (Honda Pilot) - Pro grade build and optics, quick and silent AF, lighter and much cheaper than the F/2.8. Fantastic all function lens that is light enough to be a carry-around lens for trips and hikes.
70-200 F/2.8 - (Porsche Cayenne) - Impressively sharp and quick. Can handle lower light conditions such as indoor sports, but heavier and more expensive than those above. My left bicep is discernibly larger thanks to hoisting this lens.
Compensation - In the 70-200 F/4 Canon has made a harmony of facial appearance making it the all function middle of the line lens that is nearly as reasonably priced as the 70-300 IS, yet with the ride out-proofing, lasting build, optical performance, and tack serration close to the 70-200 f/2.8.
The 70-200 F/4 focuses very quick, very peacefully and very accurately thanks to Canon's exceptional Ring USM (Ultrasonic Motor). FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing is enabled. The focus and zoom rings are very nicely sized and turn very smoothly. The lens does not extend during zooming and thanks to its inner focusing system the front element does not rotate allowing simple use of a polarized filter.
Drawbacks - If you're shooting indoors lacking a flash (concerts, some sports), the F/4 may not be quick enough for your needs. Also, the F/4 does NOT come with a dedicated tripod mount but it is available as an option ($60+) either in black or white.
By and large - This is the reasonably priced all function stud of the Canon Telephoto zoom lens line that should find a nice home in most photographers' bags. Unless you have low light or specialized uses, this lens should be high on your list of "To Buy" items. Highly Recommended! |
High-Feature, Light-Weight and Produces Outstanding Images
|
| Review Date: November 29, 2005 |
| Reviewer: Michael Morgan, The Last Motherland |
| What more can you question for? Well, IS would be nice for those low-light 200mm hand-held shots. Otherwise, this lens is nearly perfect in build feature and most importantly, image feature. It is ultra sharp with eye-popping contrast and right colors wide open at f4.0 over the whole range from 70-200mm. Stopping down to 5.6 gives only a very slight improvement, just in contrast. I tested it against the new non-L Canon 70-300 IS lens and found the images of the f/4L to have noticibly higher serration and contrast at the same f-stops. It also beat the pants off the serration and contrast of the 3-times as heavy and 3-times as costly 70-200 f2.8 IS at the same f-stops (4 to 4, 5.6 to 5.6, etc) for all but 200mm, where the IS had virtually the same (but not better) image feature. It also works wonders using the 1.4X teleconverter, becoming a super-sharp 98-280mm f5.6 zoom with quick and right autofocus. This lens seems to get a very high percentage of rave reviews from owners and for a reason. You get the best feature images and build with the most portability (low weight) for the lowest cost. Yes, you can spend twice as much for the f2.8 non-IS version and haul 3-times the weight just to get one-stop. Or, you can spend 3-times as much and haul the 2.8 IS for a Gold's Gym exercises to get low-light performance (but maybe lower image feature from my experience). There are many choices, but this lens seems to be a winner and a relative bargain for many reasons. |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
