70-200 f/4L

[DanielB]

i am going to be getting the 28-105 USM for my Canon 10D **as indicated in my sig.* however i was wondering about good lense suggestions. i have heard that the 75-300 USM is not a very good lense all-around and has a soft focus. and all i've ever heard about the 70-200 f/4L is nothing but good. so i ask. do i grit my teeth and bear the lack of zoom until i can work up enough money for the 70-200? of do i go for the 75-300 on my X-mas list.??? thanks again.

-daniel-

[gus]

Daniel i own neither of those lenses but from what i have heard about the 70-200 f/4 then you can't go wrong. You can always drop a tamron tc into it also for some more reach being such a sharp lens to start with.

Just my 2 bob's worth
Gus

[DavidTO]

Daniel i own neither of those lenses but from what i have heard about the 70-200 f/4 then you can't go wrong. You can always drop a tamron tc into it also for some more reach being such a sharp lens to start with.

Just my 2 bob's worth
Gus


Love my 70-200 f4L

[ginger_55]

It took me a bunch of time to get used to mine, no mine is not different, my experience with it is/was, though. I do use it. But I get frustrated.

First, I have conquered the "blur/shake" from no IS, so that problem is gone.

But what really bothers me about that lens is that you have to be away from your subject to take their photo. I don't recall the distance. But I don't feel it is a good lens for indoors, so it is my outdoor interim lens. My 400 gets the most use. I had only the 200 reach for a couple of weeks while I traded long lenses...................(I have a 400). And I used the extender on the 70-200. That was not as satisfactory to me as ................

Well, I am not crazy about the lens. I don't know what I would do over again. I own that lens, the 400L and the 17-40L. I prefer either of those lenses to the 70-200. If it focused closer to the subject, I would have no problem with it as it does have its uses, but I am not crazy about it the way it is now.

An example would be that I had that lens on while driving to my daughter's for Thanksgiving. It was the best lens for taking photos while stuck in traffic jams. But I couldn't take a photo of my husband who was driving. No big deal, but I would have liked to, and it is an issue at other occasions, for the same reason.

ginger

[DavidTO]

But I couldn't take a photo of my husband who was driving. No big deal, but I would have liked to, and it is an issue at other occasions, for the same reason.

ginger


Ginger, you can't blame the lens for being the wrong focal length to shoot inside a car! I understand that for your shooting it would get the least use. It's not a birding lens, but it is an outstanding lens. Especially for the price, when compared to the 2.8IS.

[mercphoto]

If you are comparing a 75-300 to a 70-200/4L there is no comparison. The image quality difference is very noticeable. I have the 2.8/IS version and it is my most used lens. Ginger's negative comments about the lens seem more about the lens's focal lengths rather than its image qualities. She shoots either wide or long, this lens is in the middle.

BTW, the 70-200/4L will make a great portrait lens when at the 70-100mm range of its zoom.

[erich6]

I've heard good things about the 70-200 f/4L. I would get that over the 75-300 hands down.

On the other hand, I ended up getting the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. It's got a little extra reach and the image quality is pretty much the same (do a search online for reviews and see some one-to-one comparisons). What won me over though was the IS. Gets you more up to 3 stops gain on your shots.

Erich

[Red Bull]

The 70-200 f/4 looks like an excellent lens. I'm about 98% set on getting this lens with money I get from Christmas. (I'll be using it with a 20D) All of the reviews I've seen only complain about "being only an f/4", but what did they expect? My friend from Michigan has this lens and he loves it. He uses it on his 1Ds and says its a great lens. (he also has the 28-70 2.8L)

I would take the 70-200 over the 75-300 or even the 70-300 IS. The new 70-300 IS seems like an alright lens, but it seems too overpriced for what it is. I'd rather spend about the same amount and get the excellent build quality with ring USM.

[ginger_55]

I think I used it half the time at Thanksgiving, a family event. So that was a lot of use for that lens, for me, and some was inside. You know I could just
sit on the couch and catch people.


http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/46070364-M.jpg


That was taken with that lens. I was sitting on the couch and actually leaned out and around a corner to get it: a good get, my other lenses wouldn't have done the trick. So I do use it. But I can't do church portraits with it or anything. And it took me some time to discover what it was "good" for. Smile.

Now that I know, I have no plans to get rid of it. I just don't think it is the best thing since peanut butter. I only have three lenses all total, and that is one of the three. I couldn't get rid of it, I need that length, too. Especially since my 400 is just that: 400.

Everyone else loves theirs. I absolutely adore my 17-40, but it wouldn't have taken this shot. And, yes, compared to the faster IS, well, I didn't even consider spending that. And I wouldn't now. Compared to going to a Tamron or whatever, well, I think this would do you, .......

And, yes, people do go on about "fast lenses". I guess we make our choices. I don't own a fast lense right now. I might get one in the 50 mm range, a macro. I am missing the macro part more than the "fast" part. Someone else would have no use for a 400.....and I am a poor person. For goodness sake, the fast one of that lens is 1000.00 more. That is just about the price of my 400, and I don't care that much that it is not fast. I am not going to make the "fast" choice, I would only own one, or fewer, lenses if that were the case. Money, money......

ginger (Oh, and if you keep all the paperwork, boxes, etc, lenses maintain their value, especially, I would imagine the "good" ones, and this is known as one of the best.)

[Mike Lane]

I've never heard anything but good things about the 70-200 f/4 L. I've rented the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a couple of times and I can tell you that I absolutely love it. I'd go right out and get a 70-200 f/4 if I had a full frame camera. I found myself wishing I had more on the wide end of the spectrum a lot of times. The shots that I got were fabulous though.

I recently purchased a Sigma 50-500 f/4-5.6 :wink I'm still getting the hang of it, but really 50mm isn't bad (although it's not like it's a walk around lens by any means). I'm just saying, 70mm is a bit long on 20d or a 10d (works out to 112mm after the crop factor I think) but 50mm (80mm after the crop factor) seems to be pretty good.

FWIW

[DJ-S1]

Love my 70-200 f4Lhttp://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/nod.gif http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/15524779-Ti.gif http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/nod.gif

[DanielB]

http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/nod.gif http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/15524779-Ti.gif http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/nod.gif
or maybe because i have the 28-105 i should just save up even LONGER and get the 100-400 USM IS ???

just a curious thought. that would minimize my lense count quite a bit. lol

tell me what ya think of me new idea. or should i stick with the 70-200 idea.

[mercphoto]

or maybe because i have the 28-105 i should just save up even LONGER and get the 100-400 USM IS ???

just a curious thought. that would minimize my lense count quite a bit. lol

tell me what ya think of me new idea. or should i stick with the 70-200 idea.
Now you are doubling the focal length. Do you have an idea of how much reach you will actually need? What do you intend to shoot? A comparison between the 70-300 and the 70-200/4L is pretty easy. Between the 100-400 and 70-200 gets more complicated. Intended use matters a lot here.

[DanielB]

Now you are doubling the focal length. Do you have an idea of how much reach you will actually need? What do you intend to shoot? A comparison between the 70-300 and the 70-200/4L is pretty easy. Between the 100-400 and 70-200 gets more complicated. Intended use matters a lot here.
i do some birds, :scratch and i do Skate photography, and landscapes. i think the 28 part of the 28-105 takes care of most of my wide spectrum, but i can never get too close when i'm shooting skate or else they get mad at me.:D

[mercphoto]

i do some birds, :scratch and i do Skate photography, and landscapes. i think the 28 part of the 28-105 takes care of most of my wide spectrum, but i can never get too close when i'm shooting skate or else they get mad at me.:D
200mm not really long enough for birds. Adequate for some sports (I do a lot of MX and karts with a 70-200 lens, but too short for field sports like football and soccer). You might want to try a 100-400. See if you can rent one or borrow one, or find a local vendor with a nice return policy.

[JimM]

I have the same dilemma. I have decided to ask for the 75-300 for x-mas (as it is affordable for a present) and will use it until I can afford the 70-200 f4 (or preferably the 2.8). The price tage of the 75-300 USM for under $200 is very nice.

[Michiel de Brieder]

here's a link to a review I did a while ago:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=7578