70-200 lens comparison

would love feedback on this review!

 

I am unhappy about having to give you a very negative review, but it's accurate, and I hope you can use my comments to do something better. 1. The video and audio tracks are fine. 2. The review provides no accurate information which a photographer can't get from a spec sheet and a look around at sale prices. 3.The reviewer on the left wrongly claims that an f/2.8 lens is 1.2 stops faster than than an f/4 lens--the difference is one stop. I don't think he understands f-stops, which immediately destroys his credibility. Please see the first diagram in (link). 4. Since Canon makes f/4 lenses both with IS and without, why is the comparison one of an f/2.8 IS lens with an f/4 non-IS? The f/4 IS lens is also much lighter than the f/2.8 IS, and thus easier to carry.

I totally agree with @Hector Javkin above and add: Confusing adjectives. - "Original"? - (I'm no EOS history buff, but is an f4 non IS really the very first 70-200 zoom?) - Also wouldn't "original" suit a 70-200/2.8 IS Mk. I better? "New" for the f2.8 IS Mk II is by now outdated too; a Mk. III got at least announced on dpreview, together with an f4 IS Mk. II.

 

In a review I'd expect some test results or similar.

IMHO none of the two is a "hiking" lens. - I own the f2.8 IS and respect it's weight and bulk. I can imagine getting an f4 non IS as a studio lens, for shooting convenience and risk reduction but for handholding in the field I'd prefer an IS zoom and even sacrifice the EOS AF for weight reduction, by sticking to Fuji with an OIS zoom or Leica M with light f4 primes.

Do they actually know, what they talking about? Do they know that Canon currently has 5 types of 70-200 lens available .

thank you for the constructive criticism. We realized we made a mistake when talking about the f/stops.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Hector. This isn't a useful review. First, the logical comparison to the f/2.8 with IS is the f/4 with IS. Second, all this review tells the viewer is that the f/4 is cheaper and lighter. You can see that easily enough just by looking a the lenses on a retailer's website. And as Jochen suggests, I would expect any good review to include some results. How good are the lenses? (The f/4 with IS is better, BTW, than the f/4 without.) It would also be helpful to indicate just what the extra stop does and doesn't get the user.

 

I do disagree with Jochen about the "hiking lens" issue. I hike with my f/4 IS often, and that is one of the reasons I greatly prefer the f/4 IS.

Noted your statement on YouTube read “Canon 70-200 f/4.0 vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8ii”

 

Noted your audio said, “We’re going to do a quick lens comparison between the canon seventy to two hundred L lens the original one . . . (new speaker) to the mark two, the newest version of their seventy to two hundred lens”

 

There are two major mistakes there: the ‘original’ lens 70 to 200 in the EF Series is the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM; the ‘newest version’ is the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS USM MKII. (ignoring rumours of pending releases)

 

The review continues and as it does it lacks merit and credibility, generally.

 

Apropos feedback on the review: I advise that you need to get your facts correct before you make comparatives which you publish as ‘advice’ and to stand as a ‘review’.

 

I think that you might have wanted to make a video about lenses to use for hiking, but you got sidetracked into thinking that you needed to appear credible by exuding some aura of ‘technical excellence’ – probably better to just make a video as a fellow who uses an EF 70 to 200 F/4 for hiking and state all the reasons why.

 

BTW, you review was technically was a 'contrast' between the two lenses, not a ‘comparison’: though the word 'comparison' has somewhat been diluted in its meaning recently.

 

I think you have two choices and those are either take the feedback as professional critique from an experienced journalist or ignore and continue to publish similar to as is.

 

WW

Yeah we are taking all the advice in so we can make better content as we go on. Thanks everyone for your thoughts, that is reason i posted here.

Good oh!