Canon 70-200 f4.0 USM- Any comments on it?

[icassell]

I love my Sigma EX 100-300f4. I bought it for about $550 on ebay and it has done me well.

 

[gsgary]

I completely agree with you! I figure, I'll buy this one and if I find I'm using it alot, I'll want an even faster lens- progression: the 2.8.



I'm not necessarily apposed to the Sigma or Tamron... I've just never used one or looked into them. All of my lenses are Canon. I'd probably be interested in the resale aspect of either of the brands. It's something that probably a few years down the road I'll replace for the 2.8- along with a full format body.

I didn't buy the 70-200F2.8 i bought the 200F2.8 and kept the 70-200F4

 

[DSLR noob]

I love my 70-200 f/4 Here is the thread I did one it when it came last week.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-products-news-reviews/151955-new-toy-me.html

 

[impressme]

I love my 70-200 f/4 Here is the thread I did one it when it came last week.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-products-news-reviews/151955-new-toy-me.html

Cool thanks for the thread link... sometimes you just don't realize there's a previous thread on something... You know, like you don't notice any VW GTI's on the road till you buy one kind of thing?

 

[Derek Zoolander]

ive read a ton of reviews for the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and it sounds like a whole bunch of horror stories.
FM Reviews - 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO MACRO HSM

this version seems better

FM Reviews - 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM

That's interesting. All the reviews I saw on Amazon and B&H had good reviews for it...

 

[DSLR noob]

Cool thanks for the thread link... sometimes you just don't realize there's a previous thread on something... You know, like you don't notice any VW GTI's on the road till you buy one kind of thing?

oh it's cool. I didn't have the lens name in the thread anyway. I say buy the lens though. Definitely. It's an amazing lens. Definitely a good lens to get addicted to Ls with.

 

[robbie_vlad]

This is going to be my next pickup as well =]

 

[Samanax]

A friend of mine just got the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM (along with a 5D Mk II) and really likes it a lot. It's so much lighter than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (about 2 pounds lighter) and is very sharp. He said the pictures taken with this new lens has more color saturation and contrast compared to his non-L lenses. He's very happy with this purchase. He does eventually want to get the f/2.8 IS USM for indoor and low light shooting.

 

[icassell]

That's interesting. All the reviews I saw on Amazon and B&H had good reviews for it...

I have the Sigma 50-150mm EX f2.8 -- it's a wonderful lens.

 

[DRoberts]

Having experience shooting fire/rescue scenes I think you will not be sastified with the f/4. You will be way to limited with your lighting. Most fires occur at night or in the early early mornings. The f2.8 is way better in most of the situations you will find yourself in. The Sigma f/2.8 is a very good quality lens, and will work great for you. You can get it for a comparable price.

 

[parsec]

Has anyone ever compared the the non-IS version with the Canon 70-300mm IS USM? Ken Rockwell is of the opinion that if you can't afford the 70-200mm L IS that you're better off with the non-L IS than the non-IS L, at least in this case. He argues that the IS will do more for you than the L optics will. Knowing Ken Rockwell though, I'm sure there are those who disagree with him almost as a matter of principle. I have heard from other sources though, that for a non-L lens that the 70-300mm IS USM is surprisingly good.