Canon 70-200mm f.4 L lens

[Dao]

And Canon just start another round of instant rebate (couple days ago) on the 70-200 f/4L IS (no instant rebate on non-IS version )

 

[vtf]

Taken this morning with my new Canon70x200L f4 at f4 and 1/200th using flash. Slight downward shot with my yard as the green backdrop. This was at 70mm and 1 yard away. Unedited, saved directly from RAW to GIF and resized for posting. I'm pretty happy!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wgp1987]

Not to change the subject but I'm shocked that you traded in a t1i for a 40d. With a newer processor and sensor the t1i should be a superior camera for an individual photo and phenomenal HD video. The build quality of the 40d is certainly better and it may shoot faster in succession but I would prefer the t1i for a still photo any day. I use a 5d after jumping from a 30d and certainly miss the high frame rate but I can't ignore the amazing high ISO quality. Full frame is certainly better then apsc but the newer processor and image sensor of the t1i can give you great versatility with live view and ISO performance. Just a little shocked but I don't know what or how you shoot. Don't fret though ... Magnesium body feels much better in the hand and the weather resistance is nice as well. Pentaprisim viewfinder is larger and brighter amongst other high quality components. The only selling point to me over a t1i would be the 40ds frame rate. But hd video, iso performance, live view functionality are key selling points to me. Anyone else feel the same?

 

[Neil S.]

The 70-200 f/4 is a nice lens, but unless cost is a major issue I would go with either the IS f/4 version or one of the 2.8 versions.

Lets be honest, being able to shoot at 2.8 (vs f/4) is better for 2 huge reasons.

#1 - It lets you shoot in lower light

#2 - It allows you to shoot with a more shallow depth of field

Now even if you don't care about low light, theres no getting around the DOF difference.

The ability to throw backgrounds out of focus is so useful, and unlocks new and creative possibilities.

So basically I wouldnt get that lens, unless you simply can't afford a 2.8 version. This includes having to save a while for one.

Also if you do decide to go the f/4 route, I would get the IS version.

The reason I say get that one is not only because of the advantages that IS brings. It is mostly bcause it has weather sealing, and the non-IS version doesn't. This is a pretty big deal in my opinion, and it provides both superior longevity of the lens as well as peace of mind knowing that it is better protected from the environment.

I believe that the IS version is also a better performer optically (sharper, etc.) based on reading some reviews as well.

Neil

 

[KenC]

If you do not usually use a tripod and IS is important to you, then consider the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS (non-L) for about the same price. You get more reach, although it's a little slower at 200 than the 70-200/4. However, the IS works really well, probably good for about three stops. Optically very good - check out the reviews.

 

[analog.universe]

Not to change the subject but I'm shocked that you traded in a t1i for a 40d. With a newer processor and sensor the t1i should be a superior camera for an individual photo and phenomenal HD video. The build quality of the 40d is certainly better and it may shoot faster in succession but I would prefer the t1i for a still photo any day. I use a 5d after jumping from a 30d and certainly miss the high frame rate but I can't ignore the amazing high ISO quality. Full frame is certainly better then apsc but the newer processor and image sensor of the t1i can give you great versatility with live view and ISO performance. Just a little shocked but I don't know what or how you shoot. Don't fret though ... Magnesium body feels much better in the hand and the weather resistance is nice as well. Pentaprisim viewfinder is larger and brighter amongst other high quality components. The only selling point to me over a t1i would be the 40ds frame rate. But hd video, iso performance, live view functionality are key selling points to me. Anyone else feel the same?

To me the ergonomics of going from a rebel body to an XXd series would be worth it. Doesn't matter how nice your sensor is if you've missed a shot because you were digging around through the interface. The XXd and better bodies have dedicated controls for many parameters so you can shoot in manual mode on the fly.

 

[iNick]

Not to change the subject but I'm shocked that you traded in a t1i for a 40d. With a newer processor and sensor the t1i should be a superior camera for an individual photo and phenomenal HD video. The build quality of the 40d is certainly better and it may shoot faster in succession but I would prefer the t1i for a still photo any day. I use a 5d after jumping from a 30d and certainly miss the high frame rate but I can't ignore the amazing high ISO quality. Full frame is certainly better then apsc but the newer processor and image sensor of the t1i can give you great versatility with live view and ISO performance. Just a little shocked but I don't know what or how you shoot. Don't fret though ... Magnesium body feels much better in the hand and the weather resistance is nice as well. Pentaprisim viewfinder is larger and brighter amongst other high quality components. The only selling point to me over a t1i would be the 40ds frame rate. But hd video, iso performance, live view functionality are key selling points to me. Anyone else feel the same?

I hear you and if you check out the snap sort link here Canon 40D vs T1i it does agree with you that the T1i is the better camera but the reason it lists are all irrelevant to me. I don't shoot video so there isn't any need for that. Both cameras have live view, which i don't use much anyway, but it is nice to have. The 40D has the petaprism, 6.5fps, 30% better color depth, double the max shutter speed, magnesium body,not to mention the bigger body feels much better in my big hand, and while the max iso doesn't go as high, from my research i have found that the 40D has less noise at high iso than the t1i, even better than the 50D. Im also saving $150 by switching so i can put that towards glass. Overall this is the best option for me i believe but i can understand why many would prefer the T1i over the 40D.

 

[iNick]

To me the ergonomics of going from a rebel body to an XXd series would be worth it. Doesn't matter how nice your sensor is if you've missed a shot because you were digging around through the interface. The XXd and better bodies have dedicated controls for many parameters so you can shoot in manual mode on the fly.[/QUOTE]

This is also another big advantage for me since i shoot manual most of the time.

 

[Overread]

*moving to canon lens subforum*

 

[LF911SC]

Sounds like you want it. Would I go that way, 70-200 + 50? No, but you seem to have your mind made up.

 

[xzoup]

I find a monopod is very helpful when using my 70-200 f4L that has no IS.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I agree with alot of comments here, in my mind an F4 telephoto without IS is pretty useless for handholding purposes, this is partly why I have held off getting a 70-200 2.8. I like the look of the Tammy 70-200 2.8, but a heavy lens without IS/VR is not going to be too useful in Great Britain due to the fact it is overcast 90% of the time in this dreary land of rain and more rain meaning the second the light levels drop I will be forced to use a tripod or a monopod which isn't what I call fun. An F4 aperture will suffer even more in my opinion in low light conditions. Those extra 3-4 stops IS/VR gives you are priceless in my opinion..

I still think though Canon have done a great thing by giving the option of a 70-200 F4 IS.. I wish Nikon would see sense and do the same.. this is actually something that still baffles me about Nikon.. why they can't offer a 70-200 F4 VR which is lighter and a reasonable price is insanity in my opinion. Canon have had the F4 out for how many years now? To be honest, this was one significant area that made me even consider switching to Canon as crazy as it may sound to other users.

 

[Eersel]

I currently own the 70-200 f/4 IS. Paired with my 50D makes a pretty rocking combination. I have used the F/2.8 and found that even when stopped down to f/4, the native f/4 produces a bit sharper of an image. I do not discount the F/2.8 II as I've taken some ridiculous low light shots with it.

Your get a great lens at F/4 for your money, however if you have some change and play in darker situations, the f/2.8 is viable.