Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 4, 2005, 5:41 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

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!)







Attached Images
 
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 4, 2005, 7:47 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52
Default

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.
Humrme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2005, 8:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

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
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 8:09 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Paul(UK)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 290
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
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
Paul(UK) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 9:44 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

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.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 11:03 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

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
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 11:39 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

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.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 11:40 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

: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.


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 2:13 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

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
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2005, 2:22 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
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
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.