Canon 70-200mm F/4.0 L lens sharpness

[jose_marin]

Hello everyone,

 

I've done some testing of lenses in this focal length lenses to

include Tamron and Sigma and I'm not too satisfied with the critical

sharpness (tack sharp) of these lenses. I an considering the Canon

70-200mm F/4.0 lens but would like to find sites with pictures I can

eval. If anyone has this lens, any information on the sharpness of

this lens would be appreciated. In a different posting, I actually

had a Canon 28-135mm USM IS lens and through recommendations,

changed to ta Tamron 28-75mm XR Di. Huge difference in sharpness,

speed, etc. Any help would be appreciated as buying a lens and then

returning it is not something I want to do.

 

Thanking you in advance, I remain...JD

[mark u]

If you're unlucky enough to get a bad lens you should have no hesitation in returning it. Not all copies of the Canon 70-200 f/4 L are fault free, but a good one (the vast majority) is superb. I'm sure you can find lots of pictures taken with it here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_4u

[max_l]

Jose,

 

email me and I will send you few pictures I shot with 70-200 f/4.

 

Max<div></div>

[J.W. Wall]

A focus problem with the Canon 10D (if not others) has been described in http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef70-200usm.htm

 

I don't know this lens, but a search turns up a few other such comments.

[digitmstr]

There are hundreds of postsand reviews regarding the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L. It is an astoubding lens by every account. I own it and can confirm what has already been said in countless raving reviews.

<p>

The color, contrast and resolution are the best in its class; add fast AF, light weight (for the range), the low price and it's impossible to match, let alone beat.

<p>

I use it mostly for portraits. If you go to my<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=437358> GERO</a> folders, just about all the pictures were taken with that lens. Here's a sample. You can click on it to make it bigger. You can really see much on a monitor but, keep in mind the picture is NOT manipulated. It was shot JPG with a 10D using a colormeter and hand-held Skonic meter using natural light only.

<p>

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2772969-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2772969-sm.jpg"></a><br><i>Canon 70-200 f/4L wide open - on a 10D</i></center>

[david_french3]

It's funny, I've read several times that the Canon 28-135 IS is not great, but when I tested

one (a second-hand one at that) I found it very close in sharpness to several L-series I was

looking at (including the 24-70 and 70-200 F/2.8, both of which are highly regarded).

Maybe I just found a good one.

 

Have you considered splashing out on the 70-200 F/2.8 IS instead of the F/4? There is a

big price difference, but it's a cracking lens.

[gerry_szarek]

Opted for the 70-200F4 great lens, very sharp, great contrast, light weight, low cost. Two complaints are no IS and the hood is HUGE.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Here are some excellent comparisons with other great lenses-

<P>http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

<P>http://www.pbase.com/token/lens_comp

[drfl]

I have found this lens to be very sharp, one of the sharpest I have ever owned. As a test I tried it on my cat to see how well the detail in the white fur came out as well as it's bokeh. Attached is the photograph.