canon 70-200 F4 L

what to do?

After many, many weeks trying to convince myself not to spend money, I've just ordered the above lense from Kea.

Spent a LOT of time reading reviews etc - and spent last few hours reading previous threads on this site - people say to go for the IS version but its double the price and I cant justify that.

Was thinking of upgrading the camera (from 350d to 40d) but decided instead, following advice, to upgrade the glass.

Just have to sit tight now for a few days and hope camera arrives

am heading off on a months holiday shortly and hope i get this lense before i go! Kea site states it can take 8 weeks........ paid for 3 day Fed X so fingers crossed.

First L lense and have never used one before.

oh - by the way - the point of the post was to ask if people can report on how long it took for Kea orders to arrive???

Ps - telling me I should have bought the IS or the F2.8 or F2.8 IS will only hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!


PPS - have the sigma 24-60 F.2.8 as a sort of every day lense - I love it - great picture quality - but its not a wide enough range - i've been looking for alternatives and i think its between the canon 17-85 and 24-105L.

steelydan99

I have the Tokina 12-24 and its a great wide angle lens. Cost me £249 from Hong Kong no customs. As for the 70-200 you will enjoy it, IS or non IS its a great sharp lens, I also have one and its great

challengemaster

Should have gone with the 2.8 version..

Honestly, It'd help a lot for low-light conditions, but what you've got is a good lens no doubt

As for another lens, what way are you finding it too restrictive?

what to do?

challengemaster,

am finding it too limiting on the wide end.

also have the sigma 10-20 - and i really really like that lense. but its just not always practical to have a few lenses with me. some days i know i'll want the wide angle and i bring it, some days i know i'll need more tele-photo and i bring (the very disappointing) canon 55-250 IS or sigma 70-300.

but in general, i'm looking for a walk around lense thats wider than 24.

WheresMyCamera?

With what you've already got and wanting something wider than 24mm that only really leaves you with in the canon camp:

17-40 f/4L
17-55 f/2.8 EF-S
17-85 f/4-5.6 IS EF-S

There are other lenses that Sigma and a few others make in this focal range but if you wanted to stay with canon, the three above would be my choice. They are in pretty much the same ball park price range.

There's a 17-85 on adverts I think.

viking

I ordered the canon 70-200 F4 L from Kea last year, took about a week to arrive if I remember rightly.

Like you, I couldn't justify the extra price for IS. Its a great lens and I have taken some shots that I, personally, am very happy with. This cropped shot of the very top of Clock Tower Big Ben (316 feet!) in London is personally one of my favourite pictures to show off the quality of the lens:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/gareth_p/1016549508/in/set-72157601178780345/

The only downside is the lack of a tripod mount.

stcstc

you can buy a tripod mount, i have one for mine

its the same one as the 400l 5.6

viking

Yeah, got one seperately myself. What I meant was that you don't get one with the lens.

Paulw

viking wrote: »

The only downside is the lack of a tripod mount.

I'm sure you can buy the collar for it?

LeoB

what to do? wrote: »

challengemaster,

(the very disappointing) canon 55-250 IS or sigma 70-300.
quote]

What do you find disappointing about the Canon 55-250IS?. I have been thinking of buying the 55-250 and the 18-55IS lens after your previous thread where it was suggested an investment in glass would be better. I have the standard lens kit and a 75-300usm which has been kind to me:) Maybe I should be looking at the 17-85 and 70-300IS ? There is such a good(wide) choice out there.
I basically want to cover 18-250 or 300mm. I like sports and want to upgrade my kit. I have Canon 400d and have put off the 40d until Christmas or new year. Any advice?

smash

forget the 70-200 you know you want this....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200239565451&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNARL:GB:1123

Paulw

The 100-400mm has a nice long reach, but at f/5.6 it's a slow lens and not good in poor lighting conditions.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a much superior lens to it.

smash

the op is looking at the 70-200 f4 though.

Paulw

Yes, and f/4 to f/5.6 is a whole stop. It would have a negative effect, especially in lower quality light.

I have both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L lenses, so can make direct comparisons.

smash

3 lenses I want

24-105 or 24-70 (will probably get the 24-105)
16-35
70-200 f4 or 100-400 (will probably get the 100-400)

I bought the 70-200 f/4 nonIS recently.Fantastic lens,extremely sharp.It's most likely the best telephoto you could get for that price.To make you feel better the IS is not worth a double in the price and you won't really need the f/2.8 unless you're shooting in the evening

what to do?

LEO B:

I find the canon 55-250 images are just not as sharp as i'd like. I've seen good reviews though so dont look too much into what i say.

Other reason I dont like it is that it sounds a bit like a jar of marbles rattling around when focussing.

the sigma 70-300 is fine - again the images aren't super sharp and the lense doesn't have IS (or APO or whatever the sigma wording is?).

The main reason I went for the 70-200 F4 L is because the above lenses are lacking sharpness. The price of the two earlier lenses equals the price of the L lense i've just bought (granted thats shop prices i paid for the first two V internet price now). Anyway, i'm learning the hard way to buy a decent lense first time around.

I know others say the lense i've bought now should have IS, however, As INIBAZ says its still a decent lense and I wont be shooting in the evening I dont think. Will also be using a tripod at times so wouldn't need IS then anyway.

I also wanted to buy a 50mm prime but only can afford the 1.8 at the moment so am waiting a few weeks and will buy the 1.4 version as I think i'd end up doing the same thing again - buying cheap first time and then paying out in the end anyway.