Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM

[GerryNick2]

Had been contemplating getting a 70-200mm zoom for a while now to fill a gap in my current range of lenses. Having ruled out the f2.8 on weight grounds (wanted a light walkabout lens) and not really having a need for IS at this focal length I went for the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM.

Got it from that infamous ebayer in Scotland and then claimed the £40 Canon cashback so cost me £300.

The image quality is superb and certainly conforms to the Canon MTF chart and it is so light you can walk around all day and not notice it is there. Can certainly recommend this lense at what has to be a bargain price for a L class lens.

Gerry

[John D]

Originally Posted by GerryNick2

Had been contemplating getting a 70-200mm zoom for a while now to fill a gap in my current range of lenses. Having ruled out the f2.8 on weight grounds (wanted a light walkabout lens) and not really having a need for IS at this focal length I went for the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM.

Got it from that infamous ebayer in Scotland and then claimed the £40 Canon cashback so cost me £300.

The image quality is superb and certainly conforms to the Canon MTF chart and it is so light you can walk around all day and not notice it is there. Can certainly recommend this lense at what has to be a bargain price for a L class lens.

Gerry

Hi Gerry,
As a matter of interest how did you confirm that it 'conforms to the Canon MTF chart'. I have a reason for asking as I would like to make a similar check on a lens I have.
John D

[GerryNick2]

Originally Posted by John D

Hi Gerry,
As a matter of interest how did you confirm that it 'conforms to the Canon MTF chart'. I have a reason for asking as I would like to make a similar check on a lens I have.
John D

Nothing technical I am afraid John. I always obtain MTF charts from the USA Canon site for any lens I am interested in purchasing as they show contrast and sharpness performance both wide open and at f8.

It is then just a case of comparing the charts to see what the difference in performance is between any given lenses.

Out of interest post purchase I compare like for like images taken with several of my L class lenses, in this case the 24-70mm f2.8, 135mm f2 and 100-400mm were compared to the 7-200mm f4. In my eyes the performance of the 70-200 f4 was at the level indicated by the MTF charts by comparison.

Not a precise science I know but it gives me peace of mind that the new lense is performing as well as expected.

Gerry

[John D]

[quote=GerryNick2;269284]Nothing technical I am afraid John. I always obtain MTF charts from the USA Canon site for any lens I am interested in purchasing as they show contrast and sharpness performance both wide open and at f8.

It is then just a case of comparing the charts to see what the difference in performance is between any given lenses.

Out of interest post purchase I compare like for like images taken with several of my L class lenses, in this case the 24-70mm f2.8, 135mm f2 and 100-400mm were compared to the 7-200mm f4. In my eyes the performance of the 70-200 f4 was at the level indicated by the MTF charts by comparison.

Not a precise science I know but it gives me peace of mind that the new lense is performing as well as expected.

Thanks Gerry, You may find the link below of some interest.
Certainly a very technical issue which make it difficult to prove how close a purchased lens relates to its 'published MTF rating'.
However a very interesting subject.

Modulation Transfer Function (MTF)
John D

[GerryNick2]

Hi John

Had a look at the link, a bit mind blowing. You might find this one a bit easier to follow and Canon specific, Sigma MTF charts are different again as they only show the results at maximum aperture.

MTF

I just use MTF charts as a benchmark to see how one lense compares to another on a like for like basis.

Gerry

[GME]

Glad you're pleased with it. What will you mostly use it for? I was considering it and at the price you mention even more so.

[GerryNick2]

Originally Posted by GME

Glad you're pleased with it. What will you mostly use it for? I was considering it and at the price you mention even more so.

There were a number of reasons for the purchase, firstly I wanted it as a light weight general purpose walk about lens and at 705gm it fitted the bill. I have a 70-300mm DO lense and have not been too impressed with the image sharpness on this one and it also produces some strange background effects which I was not too keen on. The 70-200mm was to replace this lens and based on shots taken to date the 70-200mm f4 certainly produces much sharper pictures with a more pleasing out of focus background. The other reason was that I had a FD 70-210mm in the days of film which was my favourite and most used lens and I wanted to replace it with a EF EOS compatable lens.

Obviously on a cropped sensor it becomes a 112-320mm lens and will accept a 1.4 teleconvertor without any noticeable image degradation or loss of AF giving a 156-448mm in 35mm film equivalent so it provides a useful range of focal lengths.

Use to date has been portrait shots, small mammals, flowers and water fowl. The images are exceptionally sharp and I would say it is probably one of the best L lenses Canon have produced for the price.

Gerry

[GME]

Thanks Gerry. I just thought it might be a little too short on length for some of my shots. That said, I would definitley use it for sports and portraits so I don't know why I'm still hesitating! It would be my first L series lens and it seems to be the cheapest option on making the step up to a better lens. It's always better to have it endorsed as well by someone who has actually used one other than just a shop or the internet. Thanks

Gareth

[NickCantle]

Just looking at this Gerry due to suddenly realising that I need a very good quality mid-range zoom. If I do go for a 70-200 L, I will probably go for the f/2.8 (I like a bit more weight) and I think the extra couple of stops will be an advantage in dusk light (when I like taking pictures). The questions that I have for you are;

1. Do you think it would be necessary for me to get the IS version for a significant difference in shutter speed?

2. Will it be suitable for portraits and more importantly most things other than macro and ultra telephoto? The range isn't really dedicated so it makes a good all rounder I would imagine.

Sorry to be vague in my questioning but I am only just starting to research the lens. I don't think I need to ask about the image quality though as I'm aware that it is stunning.

Thanks!

Nick

[NigelT]

Hi all. Can I add a question regvarding the 70 - 200 F4 L USm Canon lens.

I have a Bigma and a 70>300 Sigma lens, a 60mm EFS Macro and an EFS 17>85 Canon lenses.

These coupled with a 40D and a 7D (fantastic!)

I am considering getting a 70 - 200 F4 L USM Canon as I like to go cliff walking in Pembroke where choughs and peregrines are regularly seen. I also want to visit Skomer to see the Puffins. However I find that the Bigma is just too heavy to carry far from the car so I'm thinkiung of getting the white lens to improve the pic quality while reducing the weight to carry. Is this lens the best for carrying and should I consider the IS version tho' the extra £400 or so is a chalange?