Good choice?

Sideburns · Sep 11, 2007

I purchased a Canon 70-200mm 4.0L yesterday from B&H. I got it overnight so it should be here tomorrow or the next day...
Now, is that a good choice for the money? It will be my first L lens, as you can see in my sig.
I will be taking it to my cousin's wedding this weekend, think it will do well? I have hardly any experience shooting with that slow of a lens...will I have problems?

Was this a good purchase as a beginning of my career lens? Or would there be other ones I should have got first?

Sweetsomedays · Sep 11, 2007

Only thing I can think may be a problem is that you can only got to f/4
I found this to a bit of an issue with my little VR when shooting in low light. My reason for getting the 80-200 f/2.8 from B&H, due to be here on Fri.

I don't know anything about that particular lens though, good luck and enjoy it!

Don Simon · Sep 11, 2007

For most purposes it is a really great lens. For inside shots at the wedding it may be a little too slow (aperture-wise) but that depends on the venue and the lighting. If so you could rent an f/2.8 for the occasion if they're relying on you to get the shots. In low light f/4 can be too slow (but to be honest even f/2.8 can be as well)...

The really good news...
1) The lens may be only an f/4, but it is great even at f/4, and has a significant size and weight (and cost!) advantage compared to the faster lenses.
2) If you do find it too slow and need a faster lens, you can sell it and lose hardly anything because they keep their value so well.

Sideburns · Sep 11, 2007

ZaphodB said:
For most purposes it is a really great lens. For inside shots at the wedding it may be a little too slow (aperture-wise) but that depends on the venue and the lighting. If so you could rent an f/2.8 for the occasion if they're relying on you to get the shots. In low light f/4 can be too slow (but to be honest even f/2.8 can be as well)...

The really good news...
1) The lens may be only an f/4, but it is great even at f/4, and has a significant size and weight (and cost!) advantage compared to the faster lenses.
2) If you do find it too slow and need a faster lens, you can sell it and lose hardly anything because they keep their value so well.

Well luckily, they are not relying on me. I am just going to be using their wedding as a testing grounds so to speak for the lens. Just happened to be good timing in that respect.

I don't have the money for the 2.8, even if it was the lens I wanted...but will consider selling it at a later date to help offset the cost of a 2.8 IS in the future.

Thanks for all the information from you guys so far. keep it coming.

usayit · Sep 12, 2007

The 70-200mm f/4 lens is a wonderful lens.... its sharp through the apertures. In a lot of cases, the 70-200mm f/4 lens is far more usable than the often highly regarded 70-200mm f/2.8 cousin...

I have a problem with people saying that the f/4 max aperture is a problem... sometimes to the point that any zoom with less than f/2.8 is completely useless. IT IS NOT

This is like saying a regular hammer is useless because it doesn't have size/momentum of a sledge hammer. You can get a bag of f/1.4 or f/1.8 primes for the cost of that "slow" f/2.8 zoom... heheh lol.

Right tool for the right job.

Don Simon · Sep 12, 2007

Yeah that's why I usually point out that if f/4 is too slow for a telephoto in low light, f/2.8 might be too, Sometimes I find f/1.4 too slow but somehow I manage to live with it

Sideburns · Sep 12, 2007

usayit said:
The 70-200mm f/4 lens is a wonderful lens.... its sharp through the apertures. In a lot of cases, the 70-200mm f/4 lens is far more usable than the often highly regarded 70-200mm f/2.8 cousin...

I have a problem with people saying that the f/4 max aperture is a problem... sometimes to the point that any zoom with less than f/2.8 is completely useless. IT IS NOT

This is like saying a regular hammer is useless because it doesn't have size/momentum of a sledge hammer. You can get a bag of f/1.4 or f/1.8 primes for the cost of that "slow" f/2.8 zoom... heheh lol.

Right tool for the right job.

That's true, but I already find that even 1t 1.8, some of the shots I shoot with my 50 I either need more light or to open the aperture even more. I like taking shots of people around dusk, and sometimes there's lots of shade or the sunset isn't shining right in that spot, so it's hard to get the shot off.

I'm sure if I get more daytime stuff in, the 4.0 will be magnificient.

Thank you guys

(should be here tomorrow, I'll post my findings and maybe some first shots.)

usayit · Sep 12, 2007

I used to deal with Canon camera equipment both old and new. Over that time, I've accumulated a load of lenses that I was fortunate enough to try out. Over time, I realized that for MY style of shooting I carried either one of:
1) Two zooms with the focus on flexibility. Light weight, good image quality, BIG range. These are my walk around lenses. The wonderful 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8's did not make it in this category. Limited focal range and heavy. Although they are wonderful, I ended up selling them. Sad.. but no regrets..

2) A bag full of high speed primes with a focus on fast apertures and HIGH image quality. Wonderful Low light.. Extremely high image quality.

I pretty much sold off everything else...

The feeling I had was that the f2.8 zooms were neither the best walk-around lenses nor were they the fastest (primes). There's also just one stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8. As said prior, you can buy several extremely fast primes at various focal lengths for the price of that 1 f/2.8L zoom.. not to mention outperform in terms of image quality.

So why bother?

As I said.. it bugs me when people act like anything slower than f2.8 is useless. Thats like me saying that any lens slower than f/2 is useless which at one time was the attitude when zooms were just entering the market.

Again.. this is my personal choice/opinion from what I've learned over the years. PROFESSIONAL wedding photographers will have a different set of needs and experiences. In that case, the f/2.8 zooms provide a wonderful mix of IQ and flexibility. In most cases, they won't be expected to hike several miles over various terrain either.

soylentgreen · Sep 12, 2007

I am seriuosly considering selling my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and getting the f/4 non-IS again! I love the zoom range, but the f/2.8 is NOT a walk-around lens. I thought the extra stop would be great, but can't honestly say any of my images have benefited from it. Anyway, the 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens in itself.

usayit · Sep 12, 2007

ZaphodB said:
Sometimes I find f/1.4 too slow but somehow I manage to live with it

hehee.. sounds like you need to empty the bank out.... f/1 anyone?

Keagle · Sep 13, 2007

Rather than starting a new thread, I too am interested in this lens. It's between this and the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM. I only recently started photography, yet I'm really interested in wildlife photography and my current telephoto lens works less than 20% of the time, and my 70-200mm lens is an old Sigma Skylight 1B that doesn't always work

Which is a shame. So yeah - is this a better choice to get rather than the 70-300mm? The L lens is only £50 more than the 70-300mm.

Apologies for hi-jacking!

Don Simon · Sep 13, 2007

Hello.

The optical quality of the 70-300mm is not as good as the 70-200mm f/4 L. It's also slower at the long end with a variable max aperture whereas the L lens is constant f/4. However the 70-300mm has the extra "reach" which may be more useful for wildlife photography. With the 70-300mm you are also paying for the IS (Image Stabilisation), which will give a bit of an advantage for hand-held shots but will not help freeze movement any better. Personally I would go for the L lens, but if I were you I would compare them in a shop to see if you think the extra 100mm of the other lens would be more useful.

By the way, your Sigma lens is not a Skylight 1B. That's the filter in front of the lens. Take that off and you should be able to see what the lens is. I'm also a bit confused, what do you mean by the lenses "not working" part of the time?

Keagle · Sep 13, 2007

Woah! It is. It's a Sigma ZOOM-K(Well, a thing that looks like a "k") 70-210mm f/4-5.6. I got the lens from my Dad so I didn't know! With the "not working" part, I get the "Error 99". Sometimes I don't get that though, and it takes the shot. However, very rarely does it actually work. Thanks for your advice, will get a lift to town and go to some camera shops, and test out the two lenses. I'd prefer a lens that would last me a long time, and I could sell for a reasonable price should I need to. Is it worth getting a teleconverter for the extra "reach"?

Thanks.

Don Simon · Sep 13, 2007

I'd buy the lens first, and then get a teleconverter later if you think you need it (can't see any major advantage to buying them together).

Teleconverters effectively extend the focal length, however they also reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor, so your lens is effectively made "slower". Say you have the 70-200mm f/4 lens, and use a 1.4x teleconverter. What you now have is a 98-280mm f/5.6. With a 2x teleconverter it's a 140-400mm f/8.

As well as being slower, a teleconverter degrades image quality. However with a good lens and a good (and moderate) teleconverter this may not be very noticeable. For example you would probably not want to use the 70-300mm with a 2x teleconverter, but could certainly use the 70-200 with a 1.4x without losing much quality.

usayit · Sep 13, 2007

btw... the ERROR 99 could mean a variety of things... You might just be happy with the Sigma if you manage to fix that issue.

* clean the electronic contacts between the camera and lens.
* call Sigma for information concerning "rechiping". Some Sigma lenses required to be rechipped for use with newer Canon cameras.
* a knowledgable camera store might be able to direct you.