Canon 70-200 F/4L USM

[[email protected]]

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!)

[Humrme]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Paul(UK)]

[email protected] wrote:

The F2.8 must be a battleaxe in comparison!

You don't need to worry about muggers. One whack with the f/2.8 will stun them for ages

[PeterP]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[bobbyz]

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.

[PeterP]

: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.

[[email protected]]

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

[NHL]

PeterP wrote:

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:

You also got to be careful if they've included the tripod collar in the weight or not
... depending on this removeable 'accessory' the EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM may be heavier @ 1.570kg :-) :lol: :G