L lens construction and feel

I am planning on buying a digital slr in the future so I went down

to my local camera shop to see what is available. I played around

with a digital rebel and d10. I also played around with a 70-200 f4

L lens connected to the bodies. I was wondering if the construction

quality and feel of this lens is the same as it is for other L

lenses. I noticed that this lens manual focusing ring is nice and

dampened and the weight is nice. The autofocus is very quick. The

barrel of the lens was plastic, which kind of threw me, but probably

really helped with the weight. Can I pretty much assume that other

lenses will be the same build quality as this lens, since I don't

have any others around to get my hands on?

 

 

You see, I currently shoot with a pentax 35mm kit, with a few top of

the line lenses which are all metal bodied, feel nice, and sharp as

a tack, but thinking of switching systems because future needs will

require longer lenses, that I don't already have, and some zooms,

which I also don't already have. Since contemplating moving to

digital, I really don't think that pentax is going to give me what I

need in future digital bodies and they are usually late in doing

something anyway. The newer film bodies from pentax leave something

to be desired IMHO too. Anyway, I am researching now the possibility

of setting up a digital system with Canon and really looking at the

lenses. Thank you very much.

Hi Keith, I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens and it's built like a tank. I think it's quite a bit heavier than the f/4L though and it can be a bit cumbersome. But it's the best zoom lens that I own, optic-wise and is even weather-resistant. I have a 17-40mm f/4L and while it's built quite well too, I don't think it's quite as nice as the zoom. Bottom line: Canon makes their L glass very nice, build-wise as well as optically. I also own several Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad and my Canon L lenses absolutely hangs right with them. Best wishes . . .

Hi Keith, I believe you made a right choice. Canon leads the way in digital field.

 

I owned 10D and several L lenses and none L lenses such as 70-200/2.8L,17-35/2.8L,28-70/2.8/L,28/1.8,50/1.4, etc.Some of them have metal barrels while others have not.But all of them are of the first quality optically and they last.Even Canon's portrait-king lens 85/1.2 are not made of metal barrel but it deserves the masterpease.

Though I have no luck of owning 70-200/4L lens, I believe it's optically same with other L lenses.

 

Happy shooting and good luck in the coming year

The EF 70-200 4L USM is Canon's cheapest L lens. All other current L series lenses are at least as good in terms of feel and construction. The super telephotos, e.g., 200 1.8L USM, are more beefy and have metal barrels. Also, some non-L lenses are just as good in this area as the EF 70-200 4L USM, e.g., EF 100 2.8 USM Macro or 85 1.8 USM.

According to <a href="http://www.canon.ca/english/1999pressreleases/ccb/130999-EF70.html">a 1999 press release on the Canon Canada website,</a> <i>"the new f/4L lens is constructed with a durable metal barrel that is typical of L-series professional lenses."</i><p>Mine sure feels like metal.

Hello Keith

 

On my Canon 70-200lf4, the barrel is made of metal. This is perhaps the best lens in Canon's line up for "pro-consumer" use. Light, but still well built.

Would you believe, that the shots made from this L lens, are better than the photos that I have gotten previosly with my classic Pentax SMC 50f1.4?

I have to agree with the two above posters. I used to own the 70-200 f/4L, it has NEVER had a plastic barrel. If the lense you were playing with was plastic it was NOT a 70-200 f/4L.

Whoops sorry for the typo in my "previous" post, anyway, good luck with you decision, and Happy shooting!

I use and collect the leica M system . I needed an autofocus for my toddler. The 10d and my 35 L 1.4 are both robust and give leica a run for their money.

from John A.'s post above, I think I finally figured out who the 10D's market is! ;-))

The EF 70-200 4L USM has hybrid metal and plastic construction.

 

If you feel your EF 70-200 4L USM carefully, you'll notice some parts are plastic (warm) while others are metal (cold). If you tap on it with your fingernail, the plastic parts are mezzo piano (more resonance), while the metal parts are pianissimo (less resonance). For example, the parts that contain the distance window and hold the tripod ring are plastic. The sections near the front element and where the zoom numbers are imprinted are metal. I'd guess the underlying barrel is metal with plastic fittings on the outer surface. Nevertheless, the outer plastic "trim" gives it a warm plastic feel when you pick it up. Lots of us have scratched the area near the tripod ring mount and can see the underlying plastic...

I had stated in a much earlier thread that the 70-200 f/4L is all metal. The first 2" or

so from the mount is plastic, but with a metal barrel inside.

 

All the L lenses I have used (except the 100-300 f/5.6L) feel as fine as a good manual

focus lens. The focusing rings can be moved extremely slowly without any sticking.

Coming from a manual SLR, you'll be disappointed with the feel (but maybe not the

optics) of many non-L lenses.

 

Lenses that have a fine feel, although not 'L' grade, include the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM,

the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, and many others. Those

three are quite unimpeachable optically, though. Most of Canon's USM primes are

also very fine to the touch. Non-USM lenses have a gritty, almost loose feel to the

focus rings, but are still workable.

Well, my friend's 3 year old daughter has definitely taken a liking to my 10D. She also insists on teaching her mother (whom I lent my old D30) how to use it...

 

I have the 70-200 f/4L, and it is solidly built of metal, not plastic. I briefly held a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, which is very heavy and also solidly built. Neither feels quite as solid as my Leica or Hasselblad lenses, however, or even as substantial as my Nikkor AI-S lenses or my father's AF 60m Macro.

Yes, My mother who's seventy also likes to play with my 10D. So 10D is liked from 3 to 70 years of age.

Interesting read here:

http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200

 

great reviews here:

http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_84503_3128crx.aspx

 

Will be purchasing the 17- 40L USM sometime soon...Tho I wouldn't mind upgrading my 28-135 IS USM for 70-200 L =) Best Wishers =)

There's always a difference in "feel" between an all-metal lens from the 1970s and an AF lens of the 21st century; the latter will appear loose and "plasticky" compared to the rock-solid tactile experience the former one gives. Be assured that the L lenses hold up at least as well as the best Takumars.<p>I'm among those who can attest to the very good mechanical quality of the L lenses. Optically, the wide angle zooms among them aren't that convincing; the 17-35mm/f:2.8 got its "L" for mechanical ruggedness only, the 16-35mm/f:2.8 is so-so, and the 17-40mm/f:4.0 is acceptable. The EF 100-400mm/f:4.5-5.6 isn't <i>that</i> great either. All other L lenses, however, are optically outstanding; many of them are the best in their respective focal length (or focal length range) of all lenses on the market. If you want to give yourself a real treat, rent an EOS body and an EF 400mm/f:2.8 IS, and shoot a few rolls of Provia 100F through it. You'll redefine 'optical excellence' afterwards!

>>>>>> The barrel of the lens was plastic, which kind of threw me, but

probably really helped with the weight.

 

I don't mean to offend you, but there are a lot of people on this forum who are

stuck in the sixties for some reason. The concern, for instance, for the EOS

Rebel plastic mount is a monumental example. By the end of the 20th century,

the human being (believe it or not) came up with a many materials, all

indexed under the generic name of plastic or polymers if you will. An

interestingly high number of these materials are stronger than any available

metal in many ways. Does it feel like tupperware to you? Then forget it's

plastic and sleep tight, you can be sure Canon picked a high-quality polymer

which has nothing to envy from metal.

 

Get

a

life.

Thanks for all the quick responses. I feel I didn't quite speak my thoughts about this lens well enough. I think the lens I was playing with was a quality lens in fit feel and function. I played with it for about a half an hour and my initial impressions were very good. I think the manual focusing characteristic has a very good feel and the zooming was very smooth. The lens had a professional level feel as much as any other 35mm lens that I have used (Nikon and Pentax current modern lenses, not from the '70's, although I do love the old pentax lenses (sadly, no leica)). Anyway, my comment about the plastic lens body wasn't meant to be a negative criticism (I do alot of long range rifle shooting and my current rifle stock is a polymer, so I do know the benefits of using it) Others have said that is metal, so I probably am mistaken, but even if it isn't, I thought the lens was a very good quality tool. My real question is whether I can judge the quality of other L lenses by the feel and construction of this lens. I don't have the benefit of trying a 300 f4 IS L lens, which is another lens I would contemplate buying, before purchasing. Thanks alot, and if anybody has any recommendation for a certain lens for a project shooting hunting dogs while doing their trials (which pretty much means the ability to take a beating while providing fast and accurate autofocus), I am all ears. Thanks again.

It's OK to crave the feel of metal, be it brass, magnesium or aluminum. You don't have to be ashamed of your preferences. Metal or plastic? It is not politically incorrect to desire one over the other. Life is too short to be PC over your gear. Buy what you want, not what you need, and you'll be happier. Hell, I searched high 'n low for a cellphone with a metal case although I know plastic takes drops better. Metal just feels better...

Macman,

"I don't mean to offend you..." then "Get a life."

 

I can't figure out how this could be taken as anything but offensive. Please, try to keep it civil. Thanks

<P> It's a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#oldmetal">FAQ</a>. In the L range, I had the 17-35/2.8 and 70-200/4 and currently have the 200/2.8. The latter two felt much better.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

Fazal, look at the first 2 or 3" of the barrel (from the mount). Tap it. Rub it. Score it

with a razor blade. Look at the flashing (the seam present in most molded plastics).

It's PLASTIC! If it isn't plastic, then it's some metal that's so close to being plastic that

for all intents and purposes it IS plastic.

 

That's not a problem, but it is the truth. I cut a small notch from the grip lined area

directly in front of the mount with a razor, held it with tweezers, and lit it with a

lighter. IT BURNED with a thick, oily black smoke that could only be plastic. IT

MELTED to the tweezers. What metal is strong enough to form a lens barrel but yet

melts and burns at the relative low temperature produced by a butane lighter?

Geeez Fazal! I put my 70-200 L f/4 under a industrial sheet metal fabrication hydrolic

counter prism gravity press. After mearly 200 ft/lbs. of pressure IT STARTED TO

BEND! Then I put in my all-metal 24-70 L f/2.8 and it didn't start to bend until 500

ft/lbs.! C'mon, its got to be plastic!