Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 4, 2004, 5:14 AM   #1
Junior Member
photoman's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26
Default EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

Hi all!

I am looking at a new lens for my Canon EOS 10D. I currently have a EF 90-300mm f-4-5.6 and I am wondering if it is worth getting a EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM??

Let me know what you think.

photoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 4, 2004, 10:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
Normcar's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748


How much is it worth to you to have "Canon L" glass at a cost that you can afford? If the name doesn't mean much to you then you'd probably be better off focusing on the one word, "light", and an aperture potential, such as a Sigma 2.8 for a similar cost. If all of your shooting is outside then you don't really need to worry about the light issue, of course. I was personally mistaken in thinking that the 70-200 f4 would be able to handle low light well enough, but it doesn't seem to be able to and I should have listened to the experts out there who seemed to forever command me (without them knowing that I was listening) to purchase a 2.8 or lower if I wish to shoot inside, whether or not it was white and had the name Canon emblazoned on it. Anyone wanna trade a brand new 70-200 F4 L for a Sigma 2.8? He he, I just love to hate this passion.

I'll be posting a night of basketball with the 70-200 as soon as I can get all of the files uploaded. I found myself "Neat Imaging" them in order to make them worthy enough for posting, but some turned out okay. Go to my website in the next 24 hours and I'll have a link right at the top, called: NEW BASKETBALL with the 70-200 "L" series. If that isn't at the top of the index page then the files are not yet uploaded. Wait, have patience, go to the top of a mountain and meditate for a bit if you wish...


If you can't get what you want, then have fun "not" getting it!
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 9:43 PM   #3
Senior Member
Greg Chappell's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,589

In decent light the lens delivers. In low light you need a tripod and the collar to have good balance. I've had very good experinces with the 70-200 f4L in an NHL arena from the upper deck. The attached file was taken at ISO 800, is a considerable crop and has not been put through any noise reducing program.

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2004, 1:25 AM   #4
Senior Member
Normcar's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748

I've heard that image stabalization is great for some situations but perhaps not so fantastic for others. I've discovered something similar in my quest for sharpness. I think that a good monopod or tripod is an absolute necessity if one wishes to really have some force in the sharpness matter, that's for sure. I've been reading some things on how to hold your camera properly in order to similate stabalization as well, and it seems to work quite nicely for the most part. The pros say to hold the bottom of the lens so you are not fighting against gravity but using it. Makes some sense to me and seems to work from time to time. When I finally get that 4 pound Sigma of mine I don't think I'll have any trouble putting my hands there since it will probably be impossible to handhold the monster any other way. I've been thinking, perhaps that's why the "Bigma" has had such great reviews on sharpness, it's so darned heavy that IS doesn't even play into the matter since the thing drops down into the hand so powerfully that shake doesn't even play a part. He he, just a thought...I hope some truth exists on it.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:09 AM.