Canon 70-200 F4

PaulieC

Hi,

I can get one of these (slightly used) for the equivalent of 250 euros, no P&P/Duty/fees etc...

Would I be mad not to??

kensutz

Yes I think so. That or give it to me

Paulw

It's a great lens (not the best for floodlit sports though). Sounds like a great price too.

PaulieC

kensutz wrote: »

Yes I think so. That or give it to me

let's not be greedy Ken! You already have a 300 2.8, right??

@PaulW - would it be sufficient for daylight sports (Mainly Kids gaelic I would think) ? I can't ever see myself using it for floodlit games...

Paulw

cambo_gueno wrote: »

would it be sufficient for daylight sports (Mainly Kids gaelic I would think) ? I can't ever see myself using it for floodlit games...

Oh yeah, it would work very well for that. Great range and a lovely sharp lens.

elderlemon

and a LOT lighter and more compact than its newer cousins.

Paulw wrote: »

Oh yeah, it would work very well for that. Great range and a lovely sharp lens.

stcstc

I use one of these ad its sharper that the 2.8 version

lot lighter and and compact

its a very good lense

its just not great with low ish light

Borderfox

Very sharp too, supposed to be sharper than the f2.8 variants

Valentia

From what I have heard and read it is one of the sharpest lenses in the world, bar none.

PaulieC

I really cannot say no then! I haven't seen the lens as it's in Seattle, but the owner reckons it's between a 9 and 10 on the B&H used rating scale...

can't wait now

Ricky91t

ill buy it
for that price its great
and from the reviews iv read its a serious lens
Buy it and enjoy it!

stcstc

i would go as far as to say its the sharpest lens ( i would reckon the 135mm is that) but its a great lens

I like it for portraits too,

for the price you getting it for its a bit of a no brainer just buy it, either that or order more prints from me, he he

PaulieC

stcstc wrote: »

i would go as far as to say its the sharpest lens ( i would reckon the 135mm is that) but its a great lens

I like it for portraits too,

for the price you getting it for its a bit of a no brainer just buy it, either that or order more prints from me, he he

after the reaction to the prints you did last week, I forsee more prints in your future!!

stcstc

Cheers dude


if you wanna try one of the lense i have one here

Roen

Is it the non IS version? Because the newer IS version is the sharper of the two. I ended up selling the f4 non IS version to get the f2.8 IS.
The f4 was great though, and you could esily sell it for €400 if the worst comes to the worst.

PaulieC

Roen wrote: »

Is it the non IS version? Because the newer IS version is the sharper of the two. I ended up selling the f4 non IS version to get the f2.8 IS.
The f4 was great though, and you could esily sell it for €400 if the worst comes to the worst.

Yes, it's the non-IS version. FM average is 9.5 compared to 9.7 for the IS version. Anyway, at 250 quid for an 'L' lens (my first!!), I'd be crazy to turn it down...

Roen

Well 9.5 is hardly bad anyway Just be careful of the fever..............

PaulieC

Roen wrote: »

Just be careful of the fever..............

yeah, I had heard...

PaulieC

I picked this up yesterday and only had a few minutes of playing with it last night, but I noticed (ar at least I think I did) that the autofocus was not quite correct - it seemed to be either back- or front-focusing on some things. It came with a Hoya UV filter and when I removed this, the focus seems to work a bit better.

Is it possible for a lens to focus incorrectly? or is this a function of the camera? Would a UV filter have any effect on autofocus ?

Paulw

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Is it possible for a lens to focus incorrectly? or is this a function of the camera? Would a UV filter have any effect on autofocus ?

Yes, yes and yes.

It is possible that it's the lens. It seems quite unlikely though.

The camera controls the focus. It sends the commands to the focus motor in the lens. It is not uncommon for a camera to focus incorrectly, and this can be corrected by adjustments. The Canon 1D MkIII has custom functions that allow you to either front or back adjust the lens focus (either per lens or for all lenses).

A bad filter can certainly effect focus. It's like trying to focus through dirty glass. But, with the filter, you may not actually be able to see the fault causing the focus issue. A quality filter is always much better to use than a cheap filter.

I wouldn't put anything except a Hoya Pro filter on my lenses. A quality lens deserves a quality filter. Either that or don't use a filter at all.

PaulieC

thanks Paul - I don't usually use UV filters (a waste of time IMO, but let's not go there!) and I haven't had any focusing issues with he camera up to now. Guess I'll have to take it out and test it properly...

Paulw

Well, if the camera normally works fine, then it's either the lens or the filter.

Try the lens without the filter, and if it works, then you know it's the filter.

If it still has problems, then send the lens back.

Hopefully it's the filter. Best of luck.

Borderfox

The f4 should be sharp, sharp, sharp so anything wrong should show up really quick

PaulieC

yes, I thought that too. It will be next week before I can give it a good workout though.

@PaulW - I bought it used from a guy in the states so I cannot return it

PaulieC

• various lengths and shutterspeeds, but all at F4.
• Focus point is centre.
• Straight from camera
• Click on pics for full-size jpgs

Paulw

I hope I'm wrong, but they do look a little soft. I would have expected sharper from this lens.

PaulieC

Paulw wrote: »

I hope I'm wrong, but they do look a little soft. I would have expected sharper from this lens.

yeah, me too. I can't remember which ones of these had the filter on or off. The pic of my daughter is understandably soft, as it was 1/25 of a second at 70mm, but the others had plenty of light and shutterspeed...

I'll have to stick it on the tripod and try again - my hands aren't the steadiest way to hold a camera

ttcomet

When you are retaking some shots try and make sure that some of them are perpendicular (or rather you are to the subject).

Also there is a battery test talked about on a few other forums. Basically shoot 3 batteries lined up beside each other, and again lined up behind one another. If you focus on the middle one and the one behind is in focus or the one in front then you can tell if it is over or under focusing. (best that you google it for the real instructions it is a long time since i had to do it).

There is also another test explained here using newspapers (http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq)

One last tip, make sure you shoot in raw most cameras are sharper that way (or at least that is what I have noticed in the online tests).

I hope it goes okay for you.

BTW the picture of the tree and the alarm seem fine to me, the little girl seems soft around the eyes. The right chimney stack also seems fine, the left one seems a tad soft but is it dof or just theodd angle you are shooting at?

AnimalRights

Borderfox wrote: »

The f4 should be sharp, sharp, sharp so anything wrong should show up really quick

I have this Lens too, got it a few weeks ago, it's so good half sorry I didn't get the IS version......

PaulieC

the tests will have to wait for a while - off to westport for the weekend which will be a purely drinking exercise, no cameras allowed

PaulieC

I put the lens (and camera) on the tripod last night and was very very impressed with the sharpness of some of the results - certainly as sharp as anything I've ever taken.
What I did notice is that a lot of shots I took at 200mm were affected by camera shake (even on the tripod ) - I previously had a few different 70-300 zooms and I always thought they were too soft, but it's really just down to the fact that I cannot hold the camera still...

MartMax

I am also seriously considering this 70-200mm f4 L lens too but not quite sure if I should go with the IS version or the other. There's a big gap in the pricing but for the IS version is also weather sealed. Would love the f2.8 versions but they are totally out of my budget.

I'm getting more interested in sport and nature photography these days, so I'm so tempted to get one soon! Hiding my credit card away at this moment. But, I feel like it's justifiable to spend more in lens as Canon cashback (for the 40D kit) is on its way to my bank account!

AnimalRights

mart_max wrote: »

I am also seriously considering this 70-200mm f4 L lens too but not quite sure if I should go with the IS version or the other. There's a big gap in the pricing but for the IS version is also weather sealed. Would love the f2.8 versions but they are totally out of my budget.

I'm getting more interested in sport and nature photography these days, so I'm so tempted to get one soon! Hiding my credit card away at this moment. But, I feel like it's justifiable to spend more in lens as Canon cashback (for the 40D kit) is on its way to my bank account!

The f2.8 versions are FAR bigger.

Borderfox

I would stretch for the f2.8

PaulieC

If I was buying one new, I would definitely go for a version with IS, being that shake seems to be my biggest problem with telephoto lenses

Borderfox

It just depends on the shutter speed. Multiply the focal length by the crop and thats your minimum. 200mm x 1.6 crop = 320mm minimum shutter speed to avoid shake. You can combat this by bracing yourself against things.

Covey

There is no need to factor in the crop Borderfox. It doesn't have any further Shake effect than a non-cropped camera. The rule of thumb 1/200 sec still should apply.

T.

Placebo

the 68mm that u get with 40D is pretty BLEH, its f4, you definatley need f2.8

and for camera shake on tripod get the cable with the button!

Paulw

Placebo wrote: »

and for camera shake on tripod get the cable with the button!

Or use mirror lock-up and timed release. Works better.