Canon 70-200 F4 L

weepete

TPF Supporters
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,070
Reaction score
2,419
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Website
www.petecrawford.co.uk
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So I'm considering buying my first L lens to plug a gap an my focal length range. I mostly shot landscapes and wildlife so don't really need an f2.8 so an f4 should do as mostly I'll be shooting at f8 anyway. I have the wide end covered, and the really long with a 150-600mm tamzooka but don't currently have anything between 70-150mm. Is there anything else I shoud be considering?
 
Can't get much better than that zoom
 
I assume you mean the none IS version.I dunno the none IS but I had the 70-200 f/4 L IS and its very sharp at f/4 tack by f.5.6. There is no need to stop down this lens much unless you need a greater DOF. Some Canon users claim the IS version is better In many ways,One is weather sealing and supposedly sharper but also more expensive. Either way IS or None its still L quality and I am pretty sure your going to love it. We wait pictures.
 
So I'm considering buying my first L lens to plug a gap an my focal length range. I mostly shot landscapes and wildlife so don't really need an f2.8 so an f4 should do as mostly I'll be shooting at f8 anyway. I have the wide end covered, and the really long with a 150-600mm tamzooka but don't currently have anything between 70-150mm. Is there anything else I shoud be considering?

maybe you think you don't need f2.8 but it's mighty useful in many situations - if you cannot afford Canon look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8
 
I have the 70-200 F4 no IS myself and it is an awesome lens for that price! Would buy it anytime again. If you can afford a lens with F2.8 go for it. If not you will be happy with the 70-200 :1247:
 
I've owned and sold this lens. Only sold it because i switched system.

It's a great lens especially if you don't really need a 2.8. One great thing about it is that relative to its faster siblings it's a bit lighter and smaller. That gives you an excellent lens that is also practical for multiple applications and very versatile.

My main use was for candid portraits in the streets and some reportageish stuff when needed. The focal length gave me nice seperation at f5.6 without blurring the background into bokeh extreems. Which suited needs and stile perfectly.

IS is the only thing i would consider if going again.
 
Thanks everyone. After looking at it for the past couple of days I think I've made up my mind to wait and save up a bit more for the 70-200 f4 L IS as it does seem quite a bit sharper than the non IS, I have £500 put away for this so far. In the last three years or so the number of shots I've used an f2.8 for you can count on the fingers of one hand, so I don't think its worth an extra £600 on top of that for me.
 
Thanks everyone. After looking at it for the past couple of days I think I've made up my mind to wait and save up a bit more for the 70-200 f4 L IS as it does seem quite a bit sharper than the non IS, I have £500 put away for this so far. In the last three years or so the number of shots I've used an f2.8 for you can count on the fingers of one hand, so I don't think its worth an extra £600 on top of that for me.

I have a few lenses and this one (my first L lens) is still my favorite!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top