Canon 70-200 f/4L, Why? What do you use it for

[christopher_diao1]

I am thinking about getting this lens in the next few days.

 

I have no doubt about the optical quality. However, I am a bit "cold

fee" right now, worrying about the lost of two stops from 2.8.

 

What do you all use that lens for? Do you miss the faster aperture?

 

I currently have 100mm macro, 135mm SF, and 200mm 2.8L. Do I really

need 70-200f/4L?

 

I do mostly nature, landscape and macro. Thinking about doing more

portrait and journalistic. Would this lens be really useful? If

not, what would you suggest?

 

Thank you all very much.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I am a bit "cold fee" right now, worrying about the lost of two stops from 2.8.

 

The f/4 is one stop slower than the f/2.8.

 

>> I currently have 100mm macro, 135mm SF, and 200mm 2.8L. Do I really need 70-200f/4L?

 

IMHO no. This range is fully covered by better and faster lenses.

 

>> what would you suggest?

 

A wide angle lens for nature and landscape. Possibly the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 for low light. For portraits you have all you need.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[pjmeade]

Hello Christopher, I have a 70-200 f4, which I use with my 20D. I use it a lot for portraits, some wildlife/nature shots and sports. The dof is pretty good at f4 and if light is not the best I can push the iso without too much noise. So no, I don't miss 2 stops, and I'm 370GBP better off. If money had been no object, I may have shelled out for an f2.8 though.

 

Many of my most recent shots feature the f4, so have a look. The pigeon shot was taken at 1/8000, 200 mm, iso-1600. The insert is 100% crop in the full frame.

 

Hope this helps. P<div></div>

[christopher_diao1]

With my primes mentioned above, do I still need to 70-200 /4L? I notice lots of professional landscape photographers, who even published lots of coffee table books, use zoom lens only. My concern is NOT for this lens to use for landscape, which I think, if I stop down will provide quite good results (especially color rendition). My concern is that, if I use this lens for journalistic and candid portraits, do I have narrow enough DOF? I am thinking of this zoom lens (even though I have some good primes for that range) largely because the convenience of carrying one, instead of several primes. Also, I like the zoom for quick composition on the street, etc.

 

Now, I do have other lens in wide area:

Tokina 20-35/2.8,

Canon 50/1.8,

Tokina 28-70mm ATX-Pro 2.6-2.8 (which I like, but lots of reviews put that below some of the late comers, Tamron 28-75, etc.)

Canon 28-70 3.5-4.5 II, which for stopping down has very good sharpness.

 

Now, do you think the above are good enough for good landscape in that range? (sharpness and color rendition)

 

What would you think I should put my money in next?

for landscape and journalistic, portrait, etc, would 35mm /2 be a good addition?

[christopher_diao1]

Continue....

 

I also think 70-200 /4L for the convenience for carrying only 3 zoom for my nature, possible with a 100mm for macro.

 

I do also have extension tube 25mm for attaching to zoom for macro...

 

All in all, do you think 70-200/L4 would be a good addtion or I should put money in other, e.g. tilt lens, 24-70/2.8L, or some other primes? Thank you for your input.

[pjmeade]

OK Christopher, back to your specific question, do I recomend the lens? Yes, unreservedly. The 28-135 f3.5 IS may be an option, but I have no experience of that lens.

[christopher_diao1]

Peter, thanks for the recommendation. I take it that you recommend this lens in light of what I have already.

 

For 28-135 f3.5 IS, it will sound like interesting versatile addtion. I just saw a very coffee table book, with lots of fantastic pictures taken with this consumer lens.

[andy_van_eynde]

Advantage of the 70-200 f4 over the f2.8 version : weight!

For sure if you have to carry it around all the time.

 

So if you can do without the extra stop....

[daniel_taylor]

You already have this focal length range covered. Only you can decide if the zoom is worth it to you. It would benefit journalistic, sports, and probably wildlife shooting. I don't see how it would benefit you in portraits.

 

As for the optical quality: excellent. You don't need to stop down at all with this lens. It's beautiful at f/4.

 

But then, so are your primes. For you, with your existing lens collection, the only real benefit to this lens is the zoom ring and the weight/speed advantages that ring brings.

 

How often have you missed a shot because you couldn't walk fast enough to frame the subject, but being able to zoom would have saved the day? How often have you missed a shot because you didn't bring one of your primes, in this range, due to weight? How often have you carried all your primes in this range, only to wish your back didn't have to suffer?

 

Answer those questions, and you'll know whether or not to purchase.

[christopher_diao1]

Thanks for all the comments. To me, it's clear that buying this lens is to benefit from the weight and convenience.

 

Now, last question, do you find this lens has narrow enough DOF for some portraiture?

[sjg]

FWIW, I have the 2.8 IS version and more than 50% of the pics I've taken with it are wider than f/4 (40% at f/2.8) and many already

at ISO 800 or ISO 1600. Usually hand held btw.

[benbangerter]

Christopher, depth of field depends only on focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject. It is not otherwise an attribute of any particular lens. Your 100mm macro lens, at f/4 and focused at 10ft, will have the same depth of field as the 70-200 zoom set to 100mm and f/4 and focused at the same distance. See Bob Atkins' discussion for example: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/depth_of_field_calc.html. Now bokeh, on the other hand, may be a different story...

[rob_murray]

You have 7 Canon lenses in your arsenal.

For portraits you have the 50,100,135sf,200. No need for anything else. You got 2 wide zooms for landscapes and journalist stuff and your 200 2.8 is fine for longer journalist stuff too.

[jbq]

It's only 1 stop, BTW, not 2 stops. I don't have any body that has an improved AF for f/2.8 lenses, and my understanding is that the f/2.8 is somewhat less sharp at f/2.8 than at f/4, and that at f/4 and above the f/2.8 and f/4 are neck-to-neck.

 

I picked the f/4 for its size, weight, price.

 

It sounds to me that a 50 or 35mm prime might be more appropriate for your goals.

[digitmstr]

>>Thinking about doing more portrait and journalistic. Would this lens be really useful?<<

 

Yes! It's a great portrait lens, one of the best anywhere, period. No ifs, buts, or anything about it.

[christopher_diao1]

Giampi, thanks for the input.

 

For portrait, is 4 narrow enough DOF? Do you find it usable for hand-held in most of the situation? I am still using film, so can't have ISO above 400.

[michael_ramirez]

I am a wedding photographer and while I have to use my 17-40 and the 24-70 for most of the wedding, at the reception I very joyfully pull-out my 70-200 f/4 and get the most superb photojournalistic head and shoulder shots. It is without doubt the sharpest of all my lenses. Absolutely do not need the 2.8 version nor the IS version, even for low light...and here's why: when you take a shot, grab the lens shade with your left hand. That will steady the shot tremendously, even at 200mm. You can take absolutely tack sharp shots this way at 1/125. If low light, bounce your flash off the ceiling (even a high ceiling), use f/4 or f/5.6 and ISO 400 to ISO 800 on a 10D or ISO 1600 on a 20D with a 550EX or 580EX. The high ISO will enable a very long reach to your flash. Use the telephoto reach of the 70-200 and frame a large image size to your subject and potential grain from ISO 800 or 1600 will not be a problem.

I don't like the 70-200 2.8 with or without IS because the darn thing is way too heavy. Feels like your are shooting with a lead pipe. When I got my 70-200 f/4 I actually took $1,800 in cash with me to Samy's camera to buy the IS version. When I put it on my 10D I couldn't believe how horrible and awkward it fealt. Money was not the issue. Didn't feel like I would want to use it very much. When I put the f/4 version, so light, so tight, so right! I knew that I would use this one every opportunity I could. So, I paid $550, took the f/4 version and I have considered it one of the best purchases I have ever made.

[affen_kot]

for portraiture, you don't need this lens. as it's already been said, the ones you have already will fit your portraiture needs very well.

 

for photojournalism, though, i'd recommend the 70-200 (whichever variant fits your budget). one isn't always afforded enough time to change to the appropriate lens in the field, and then there's the dust/contaminants issue. if you're covering the paris-dakar rally, you'll get a camera full of topsoil changing from a 50 1.x to a 200 2.8.

 

cheers!

[photographicsafaris]

That depends on the Body you use.

With the 10D it is great for a close quaters wildlife lens. The main benefit

is that you dont stress about dust ingress and sensor issues.

On a film camera it is distinctly a portrait lens.

Personally i feel it is a little too long for wandering around Urban areas

(photo journalism) with a Digital (1.6X) body. However it is perfect on a

Film camera or full frame SLR.

The 2.8 IS lens is really heavy, I dont shoot 200mm with an aperture less than 5.6 so dont

need the performance, cant afford it anyway, but if I were offered one, in replacement for

the f4 I would rather have the lighter lens.

 

Incidently I have also been playing with it, with a 1.4X teleconverter (the

tripod ring is necessary) its a magic combination, better than I though,

not as good as primes.

 

To reduce the size of your kit in more challenging situations such as when

Travelling, this lens represents outstanding value as a compromise

between quality and weight of several lenses. SO No you dont need one, but with Digital

and travel you would appreciate it.

 

Cheers G

[sergey_oboguev]

70-200/4 is much lighter than f/2.8 and this makes a lot of difference if you intend to hike with that lens.

 

f/4 focuses a tad closer than f/2.8 which can make a difference for macro photography (on the other hand, IS is helpful for handheld macro shots).

 

Finally, depending on what body you use, one lens may focus a tad faster than the other.

[digitmstr]

>>For portrait, is 4 narrow enough DOF? Do you find it usable for hand-held in most of the situation?<<

<p>

Yes, it is...the example below (click for larger size0 was taken with the 70-200 f/4L at f/4.

<p>

<p>

<p>

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

[majid]

I love my 70-200 f/4L. Remarable "pop', buttery-smooth and focuses like greased lightning. I once bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and was really impressed by the stabilization, but it went on eBay the very next day as the weight was simply too much. Then again, I don't shoot sports or wildlife so I don't have a strong need for the fast aperture.

<p>

I mostly use the 70-200 f/4L in combination with my 35mm f/1.4L for events, portraits and panoramic landscapes. Most people shoot panoramas by stitching photos taken with a wideangle lens, but I like to stitch ultra-long panoramas with a 200mm focal length - I have a 4" x 100" panorama of the San Francisco city shore, for instance (<a href="http://www.majid.info/mylos/mastheads/treasure_island_view.jpg">here</a> is a very small and downsampled section of it). The low distortion of a telephoto makes it easier to stitch than a wide-angle, and you end up with a much larger and detailed image. Then again, to do a project like that, you can plan ahead by looking up elevations and distances on a map, and some <a href="http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/08/05-1.html">basic trigonometry</a> to find the optimum focal length and select which prime to take with you.

<p>

Given your current lens collection, specially the 200mm f/2.8, I would get one of the TS-E lenses instead as it would deliver more versatility to your system than a zoom that overlaps with your lens range.

[christopher_diao1]

I like Fazal's comment. I do have the good lens for the range from 100 to 135 and 200 by prime. I would looking for 70-200mm/L4 exactly for the convenience of zoom and light weight for carrying around.

 

As a matter of fact, I am looking at ts 24 an TS 90.... they produce the kind close up pictures I want to.

[peza]

No, but - I can imagine you could get rid of all of them in favour of 70-200/2.8L IS and be happier than before..

[extreme artists]

Before i brought the F4 70-200 I tried my pals F2.8IS, the only thing a 2.8 Is is good for is getting you home early, for over 70 shots you will need a tripod for it, as your arms will be shaking, unless you are a pro body builder! So if you have to use it on a tripod, you dont need the IS, or the F2.8 to get an acceptable shutter speed. The F2.8 IS lens is ideal if you are stuck with 50 ISO RVP and sun goes in and you have no tripod, for DSLR owners the F4 is my recommendation.<div></div>