|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
![]()
I received my Canon 70-200mm F/4L USM today.
Needless to say, immediately I mounted it on my Canon 20D and fired off a few test shots. Here's some first impressions. - The lens is a little longer and a little heavier than I had imagined. This is definitely not the lens you want to carry around all day on summer vacation. However I plan to use it specifically for sports photography. - The quality is excellent. The manual twist to zoom is silky smooth. The finish is an grey-white and looks totally professional (not a full white like the more expensive L lenses). - I'm sorry, but the standard Canon lens cap is a pain to use. - The lens surface looked clean and green (must be the flourite...). I cranked it up and took a few shots then ran upstairs and downloaded them to my computer. My first impression was "this is a very, very sharp lens!". In fact, so sharp I thought I had scratches on the lens until I realized there were powerlines at the back of the image I had never noticed before! - Color and contrast is excellent. I mean excellent. - Autofocus is immediate. As immediate as my Canon 50mm F/1.4 lens! - Sharpness and detail is beyond what you could imagine. I blew up a shot on my screen and noticed the weeds in my neighbour's lawn at 75 yards in the background. - For $500 dollars and change, this lens is truly too good to be true! - Here is shot number four I took with the lens right out of the box (the car is a loaner, but drives as nice as this lens!) |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52
|
![]()
I had the exact same impression of this lens when I first purchased it. I think it's a fantastic lens but I find it quite light as compared the the f/2.8 version. I also find that it works quite well with a 1.4 TC.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
![]()
The F2.8 must be a battleaxe in comparison!
Did you buy the Canon tele extender or the Kenko? I think there's a big diff. in price between the Canon and the Kenko but I hear the quality is the same. -- Terry |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 290
|
![]()
[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,397
|
![]()
Bah, the F2.8 at 2.5 pounds only weighs about a pound more than the F4 (1.4 pounds). The F2.8IS comes in at 2.9 pounds.
Good to build up your biceps :blah::blah::blah: Peter. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
![]()
There's those Canadians again!
I think the F4 is only one pound. I used to work in video, and it was nothing to lug around a 10 lb video camera on the shoulder all day! -- Terry |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
|
![]()
Terry, can you post some more pics. I also got my 70-200F4 last week but no sure if it is sharp enough. I just got my tripod but still waiting for the ball head so can't take shots on the tripod.
I am used to carrying 100-400L so 70-200F4 is very very light in comparison. Lens hood is pain. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,397
|
![]()
:blah:
The Canon lens brochure http://www.canon.ca/pdf/EF%20lenses.pdflists the 70-200 F4 as 650 grams, I think I converted it right to 1.43 pounds :blah:Though that brochure has messed up on the weight data for the F2.8 version :? I do the Sigma equivalent, and it weighs in at 1270 grams which I think converts to 2.8 pounds :!:This metric/imperial conversion stuff always gives me a headache :blah: Peter. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
![]()
Peter,
Thats right, you Canadians are already metric. I wish the good old USA would convert to metric, although I kinda like my degrees farenheit ![]() Your probably right it's close to 1.5 pounds because it's a fair chunk of lens. I will post some more pictures this weekend or next week. -- Terry |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]()
PeterP wrote:
Quote:
![]() ... depending on this removeable 'accessory' the EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM may be heavier @ 1.570kg :-) :lol: :G |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|