|
Author
|
|
Malcolm Stewart
Registered User
Registered: March 2004
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 414
|
|
Review Date: Thu January 17, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good results with my 2nd. copy.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor quality control. 2nd. copy acceptable
|
|
I bought my EF 70-200 f4L in May 2007 for £430, after much checking of web reviews and prices. Normally I buy 2nd. hand, and have had very few problems buying a dozen lenses over more than a decade of using Canon. I prefer and use primes on my 5D, but after taking my EF80-200 f4.5-5.6 to the Dolomites, I felt that a quality zoom should give better results. In view of the mixed reviews I found on the web, this time I bought new and returned my first copy as soon as I could. The very poor sharpness on just the right hand side when close to the 70mm setting jumped out at me - careful tests simply confirmed how bad it was. It got better away from 70mm, but this performance made my old £40 EF80-200 f4.5-5.6 look stellar! (I've had decent A3 prints from it.)
I requested a 2nd. copy and although (now knowing where to look!) I can still see some problems with this copy, I decided that the performance was acceptable, and nearly a year on that was the right decision.
It covers a useful range on my 5D, focuses fast and pulls in detail in urban landscapes extremely well. It's light enough to live in my bag (I guess the f2.8 version would have lived at home.), and I'd recommend it.
Standard of Build? Similar to my other L lenses - feels solid, but so does my EF 85 f1.8.
Do I use it for birding? Not intentionally. I use my EF300 f2.8L IS with extenders for that.
My low rating is simply that I object very strongly to doing Canon's QA on an L lens, or on any product. (This is only my 2nd.lens purchased new - my copy of the EF 100 f2.8 macro USM also needed early repair under warranty as it started coming apart.)
------------------------------
- - - - - - - - -
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
|
|
postcardcv
Super Moderator
Registered: August 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 16474
|
|
Review Date: Tue June 24, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast AF, easy to handhold, very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
cheap hood
|
|
I was surprised to read the previous reviews as I know a number of people who use this lens and have not heard of any other problems.
I was using the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but wanted a lighter option so switched to the Canon f4 non-IS version about six months ago. I'm extremely impressed with it, the AF is nice and fast and the images are bang on (much sharper than the Sigma). The lens is about half the weight of the Sigma and is much nicer to handhold for long periods of time. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits and action shots of the kids, though I've not shot a single bird or animal with it yet! If you want a general purpose zoom then this is an excellent choice, if you want a birding lens then look for something longer.
------------------------------
www.blueskybirds.co.uk
http://www.facebook.com/BlueSkyBirds
|
|
|
|
|
Fowl Mouth
Henry's loyal companion
Registered: November 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 5617
|
|
Review Date: Sun July 13, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $539.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, no CA, fast focus, size, weight, PRICE
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Based on almost no existing poor reviews about the net, I ordered this lens to fill my need for something past 70mm in my kit. This baby "L" tele is extraordinary. The color saturation and contrast are beautiful, without much need (ever) for post processing in these regards. Sharpness is fantastic across all corners of the field, and that's wide open at 200mm (which is where it spends 80% of it's time). I see zero CA in this lens.
Mechanically the lens is solid and tight, while having very smooth ring action for both the focus and zoom. Auto focusing is very quick, and amazingly quiet.
I marked "none" for negative aspects of this lens. Although it does have the following short comings: it's not ƒ2.8, it's not waterproof, and it doesn't have IS, for the current price (less than $600 USD) how can you complain.
It's my current favorite lens. The image quality is so good that I'll even use it in tight situations where a shorter FL lens might be more appropriate, instead using my feet to frame.
As a birding lens? Well, it's 200mm (320mm with an APSC). Not exactly what you call long. Still, if you can get close, you can do very well. Even cropping down retains some excellent detail.
If you are shopping in this FL, and have a moderate budget, buy this lens with zero concern.
Samples:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2413/...754bbc5e_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/...8d813e6f_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2246/...882cc146_b.jpg
------------------------------
Jason ®
Vertiable Imagery - photography by Jason Scherff
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAitch
Registered User
Registered: February 2013
Location: Wirral
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Wed February 27, 2013
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, size, weight, price, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
nil.
|
|
It's half the weight of the f2.8, and half the cost too. I bought it just under two years ago now and have never had a problem. The lens hood seems okay to me - did they upgrade it?
I think mine is a later version to those above and has better weather sealing.
There is no box to enter the price paid, but it was just under £500.
Now I have pressed the EDIT button and gone back to the page the price paid box has come up. (What is about this site that everything seems to be made difficult to use?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to BirdForum.
