Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L review

Michiel de Brieder

Well now,

as we seem to be making reviews and linking to stuff I think it is time for all those 70-200 F/4 L (for an L lens to be seen as el-cheapo :rofl) lovers out there to post some samples and your opinion of this lens here in public. I'll start off, so that others may finish

Okay, I've had this lens for some time now and I must say that there is little not to like about this lens.
Why did I buy this lens? I started off with a 28-105 and a 50mm F/1.4 and a D30 and I saw birds... birds birds and birds. They were quite close, but the 105mm never seemed to be enough to tackle them. So I thought: I need more tele reach. I began to do some research and after a while I found myself fixed on 2 lenses I dearly wanted. By some called, the best L lenses for the buck: the F/4's 17-40 and 70-200. They would complement the 50 by getting below it and getting over it. Those 10mm and 20mm in between? Try leaning forward and backwards and you'll see that those small steps are but minor differences. For birds it did not really 'cut the cake' so to speak, but it had it's uses:

Would you look at that bokeh [drool]
or perhaps this will suit you better:

or just a crazy portrait:

Well now, some nice examples and the reason why I bought the thing.... How to get to those samples?
It's easy! The 70-200 is a joy to use! It is light, very responsive and snappy, both on a 20D as on a D30 (and the difference in AF performance of those 2 may be known ). The lens rests nicely and comfortably in your hand and the ring USM delivers THAT punch when you need to make a slight adjustment to the AF for a given photo.

But, F/4, isn't that kinda dark? I mean, there's those 2 F/2.8 lenses ya know and.... mumble mumble. Yes, if I could cough it up, I'd be walking with an F/2.8 lens... Why would I do that if I am satisfied with this lens? Well, F/4 really DELIVERS for outdoor shooting, it's awesome! But when you get inside, you can tell that it is getting harder to work. My room has okay lighting, not much, but I can see where I'm going Here's what a 20D can do with that 70-200:

handshot ISO 800 @ 1/30th on 200mm (inc. 100% crop), not bad I'd say using a grip and controlling your breathing certainly helps getting such a shot, but the 70-200 is very friendly for handholdability. So, not bad right? Why would I want to have that F/2.8? Concert shooting my friends I'd love to have a seriously fast lens for that.... Until that time it's ISO 3200 for me
I started out with wanting birds... 70-200 is too short for that. What to do, what to do? I bought a Kenko Pro 1.4 TC... I already put up some surfing shots a while ago in a sports thread, but I'll give you one here too:

At full zoom with 1.4 TC, not bad I'd say, and very usable. The lens retains a lot of sharpness and is very handholdable with TC.
Now for a last sample of the lens:

Who says that landscapes come from wide angle lenses @ full tele and a nice pano crop I present to you my final graphical addition to this review.

All in all: I love this lens for some reasons:
1. colour richness
2. sharpness
3. overall usability
4. price
5. portability
Well people, add your reviews and hand over the questions! :deal

marlof

Great info, Michiel! It's the setup I've been eying for my starter DSLR kit: 17-40L 4.0, 50 1.4, 70-200L 4.0, 20D. It's the accumulated price of those components that keep me from getting that kit, although the 4.0 lenses seem to be quite a good compromise on quality and cost.

Michiel de Brieder

marlof wrote:

Great info, Michiel! It's the setup I've been eying for my starter DSLR kit: 17-40L 4.0, 50 1.4, 70-200L 4.0, 20D. It's the accumulated price of those components that keep me from getting that kit, although the 4.0 lenses seem to be quite a good compromise on quality and cost.

Marlof, ya know what I did? I started out with the 28-105, if I had to choose now I'd go with a sigma 18-125 to start of with. It's a very cheap and adequate lens and it will surely help to determine your future setup. You can learn the camera with the lens and save up for the rest of your kit in due time (but if you are sure about the purchase and have the money, I'd say do it )

DanielB

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

Well now,I started off with a 28-105 and a 50mm F/1.4 and a D30

amazing how similar our setups are *minus the fact i have a 10D.* 28-105 is a veryy fine lense. but as you described ealier. not too great for birds. lol.

thanks for this review. it helped alot with my decision on the 70-200

gsgary

Some of my examples

160mph down the straight at Donnington Park shame about the fence but i still like it





Rugby



Football


Canoing





Horse Racing




It can do the lot these are after 4 months with a DSLR
and 70-200
Thanks for looking
Gary

Red Bull

Thank you so much for the review! It's very reassuring. I will be buying this lens once I have the money for it after Christmas. I've been drooling over it for the past 6 months!

Just curious about you saying "there is little not to like". I'm just curious of what some things about this lens that someone may not like? It won't affect whether I purchase it or not, but I'm just curious.


Also, can someone post a photo of the 70-200 f/4 on a 20D? (or a camera of about the same size) I'd like to see about how big it is on a 20D.

Thusie

Michiel,

Thanks for the great review and the pictures, you as well Gary. I love my 70-200 f4. Not real great at using it yet but when I do get my act together on rare occasions...Ohoo it is so nice

Eric&Susan

I too love my 70-200f4. It's the only L lense I have but I can see why people develope L fever.

These aren't the best but they were all taken the first week I got the 70-200










All in all this is a great lens. Since I got it for free (bday present) it's even better.

Eric

Michiel de Brieder

Red Bull wrote:

Just curious about you saying "there is little not to like". I'm just curious of what some things about this lens that someone may not like? It won't affect whether I purchase it or not, but I'm just curious.

Steven,

there is a trade-off, you get a light weight, very portable and usable lens, but F/4 isn't that big a hole As mentioned in my review: if I had the money I'd buy an F/2.8 version because I like concert shooting. The full-stop makes a huge difference there. Otherwise I'm totally satisfied with the lens (even for concert shooting it suffices when there is enough light). So indeed, there is little not to like, except maybe dor a small trade-off

Hope that helped!

P.S. I'll post a picture of it on my 20D when I get home tonight!

DanielB

Red Bull wrote:

Also, can someone post a photo of the 70-200 f/4 on a 20D? (or a camera of about the same size) I'd like to see about how big it is on a 20D.

i too am curious how much space this will take up on my 10D *almost exact same size as 20D* i will me making a trip to the local camera store to try it out and drool more. lol. thanks

-daniel-

Blurmore

My first L lens, and possibly...my last.
I love this lens, it is the only lens in my bag I feel TOTALLY comfortable shooting wide open. I'm not sure I will ever need an f2.8 lens, I shoot weddings, and portraits, and I use an 85 1.8 for the portraits. I don't see Canon making any EF-S L lenses now that they made EF-S go by the way of Nikkor IX, and the Minolta Maxxum XI, dead ends. The 24-70 f2.8 L simply doesn't cover my needs in one lens, and I'm not using 2 to cover what 1 should. SO unless a sub 1k 85 f1.2L or a sub 500 dollar 135mm f2 L comes my way, I won't invest in another piece of L glass unless I could swing a full frame body. Now that everyone is thoroughly confused, here are some of my fav's.















As a side note I think it is a great lens for photojournalism (aside from the 'hey steal me, I'm expensive' color) not that I do that sort of work

Michiel de Brieder

here's the 20D with the 70-200 mounted, for those interested Courtesy to the Casio Z750 :lol

NuckinFuts

Michiel,
Your review was helpful in making my decision. I just bought this lens from Arjunrc. I will be using it on my new 350D. Let's see how the pictures come out. I am a beginner at photography.

Red Bull

Thank you for the photos, Michiel.

DanielB

Red Bull wrote:

Thank you for the photos, Michiel.

same here. thanks bunches.

T(h)orsten

Canon 70-200 f4 L
Although I am a bit late, here are my 2ct.

I shoot mainly outdoors and the 70-200 F4 is great for that. Also size and weight is the maximum I personally want to carry along as I walk the city streets quite a lot. Guess that makes me the only person not looking at the 2.8 IS

If you want to shoot at night (or use the tripod anyhow), get the tripod ring. Lets your turn the camera from "landscape" to "portrait" without using the tripod head and balances the camera/lens weight. Very handy but unfortunately not included in the price. As I remember it sets you back about 100 US$.


T

robscomputer

I tried out the 70-200mm f/4 and then later sold this lens for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The f/4 version was an excellent lens and much lighter than the f/2.8. At times I use a monopod with the f/2.8 for times when I'm waiting for a shot, where as the f/4 was light enough to hand hold. While I have used the IS on the f/2.8 I mostly use the lens in the day so I haven't need to use mode 1 too much. Also being lighter makes it easier to carry longer.

Rob

pediwent

Note that some people (including myself) have had backfocus issues with this lens, especially with 300D and 10D bodies. My copy of this lens backfocused unacceptably on the above two bodies as well as the 20D. That said, I sent it into Canon factory service and they recalibrated it at no charge. Now that it's focusing properly, I will agree with everything said in this thread - this lens is the best bang for the buck in Canon's lineup.

One note on the tripod ring. Apparently there is a ring for a different lens that only differs in the fact that it's black instead of white and it costs a bit less than the "official" ring. Look for the Tripod Ring A(B) for the 200mm f/2.8 and save yourself a few bucks.

Michiel de Brieder

pediwent wrote:

One note on the tripod ring. Apparently there is a ring for a different lens that only differs in the fact that it's black instead of white and it costs a bit less than the "official" ring. Look for the Tripod Ring A(B) for the 200mm f/2.8 and save yourself a few bucks.

While I think it is ridiculous that the tripod ring is sold separately I also have no problem using the lens/camera on a tripod without the tripod ring, the lens is just that light

TOF guy

Does anybody have a picture taken with that lens, 70-200 f4, L in the following conditions:

- background clearly defocused, preferentially with speculars or light sources

- shot at the * short * end of the focal range (in other words at or near 70 mm and not at or near 200 mm focal length)

Thanks in advance for posting an example.

Thierry

BrianLowther

I checked my pics but no luck.

TOF guy wrote:

Does anybody have a picture taken with that lens, 70-200 f4, L in the following conditions:

- background clearly defocused, preferentially with speculars or light sources

- shot at the * short * end of the focal range (in other words at or near 70 mm and not at or near 200 mm focal length)

Thanks in advance for posting an example.

Thierry

It seems I nearly always shoot at or close to 200mm. I could have a try this weekend if you get no other replies. Brian

Eric&Susan

This is one of the only pics I could find at 70mm
1/400 sec
f11
ISO 200
Focal Length 70mm



Eric

Blurmore

Me thinks this is what you are looking for

TOF guy wrote:

Does anybody have a picture taken with that lens, 70-200 f4, L in the following conditions:

- background clearly defocused, preferentially with speculars or light sources

- shot at the * short * end of the focal range (in other words at or near 70 mm and not at or near 200 mm focal length)

Thanks in advance for posting an example.

Thierry

Aperture: f/5.6 ISO: 800 Focal Length: 70mm Exposure Time: 0.025s (1/40)

the oval type highlights oof at the top are like overgrown vanity globe bulbs in a mall, like marquis lights. Focal length 70mm, focus about 5 feet maybe?, close but not at the minimum, and whoah I was holding 1/40th of a sec, must have skipped the coffee that morning. Any blurriness you see I will attribute to camera shake and not the lens though. If you desire it original size PM me and I'll give you the link.

TOF guy

Thank you Eric and "Blurmore".

Yes, Blurmore, the pic you posted is exactly what I wanted. All I can say is: this is a great lens, and a very good offering by Canon to offer that kind of performance at a lower price point than the 2.8.

The reason I've asked is because the 70-200 2.8 L presents IMHO inconsistent optical performance accross the focal range: excellent at 200mm, but not at all at the same level at 70mm (if you see a pic taken with the 70-200 f2.8 L in the conditions that I've posted, pay attention to the bokeh, and you'll see what I mean). The 70-200 f4 L does not seem to suffer from the same issues. Interesting.

Thierry