I'm considering getting 70-200 f/4L for my Canon 10D. Lately found a few complains of a focusing problems. What's your experience, is it really that bad?
I'm considering getting 70-200 f/4L for my Canon 10D. Lately found a few complains of a focusing problems. What's your experience, is it really that bad?
A friend has that exact combination and loves it. He is quite demanding.
I'm considering getting 70-200 f/4L for my Canon 10D. Lately found a few complains of a focusing problems. What's your experience, is it really that bad?
While there are several instances of backfocusing 70-200 f/4L lenses, it is something that Canon can calibrate to perfection. Don't let the fear of getting a backfocusing lens prevent you from getting it. It works great with the 10D.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of those "backfocusing" issues aren't operator error. Fine lens, fine camera, no worries.
I don't buy that argument. My first 70-200 f/4 backfocused badly. I exchanged it for another that was right on. And user error isn't involved with those (quite a few users) that have sent theirs for calibration and received spot on lenses in return.
Don't look at me, I have the lens and a 20D. I just don't like the lens, neither would I give it up.
Now the 70-200 IS F 2.8 or something, you might want to try that one.:D
And I wouldn't mind having that one either.
At the price difference, and since the 70-200 is my "third" lens, not used as much as the long(er) and the wide. I am learning to use it.
I had focus problems, well I had OOF problems that I have less of now. I have had it since Feb. Bought it used, don't think I can send it to Canon for free. The fact that I have fewer problems now is encouraging. Especially as I don't use it as ofter as I use the others.
Backfocusing is something obvious, when you know that you were in focus. Canon will fix that for you. My gear was new and had that issue. As for the 10D and 70-200/4, you can put it beside a 1Ds and 70-200/2.8 IS and not tell the difference on an uncropped 8x10 print. The differences are many, but if you do not need them, then you wll have a great cobo there for the money. Think of the 1Ds as a Porsche, and you are driving in downtown L.A. A bit of overkill for that particular scenario.
The 70-200 has a flourite element, they can do that in that lens because it is smaller. Nothing wrong with it at all!
Comments
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Olga
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Olga
Now the 70-200 IS F 2.8 or something, you might want to try that one.:D
And I wouldn't mind having that one either.
At the price difference, and since the 70-200 is my "third" lens, not used as much as the long(er) and the wide. I am learning to use it.
I had focus problems, well I had OOF problems that I have less of now. I have had it since Feb. Bought it used, don't think I can send it to Canon for free. The fact that I have fewer problems now is encouraging. Especially as I don't use it as ofter as I use the others.
ginger
The 70-200 has a flourite element, they can do that in that lens because it is smaller. Nothing wrong with it at all!