Should I go for Canon EF 70-200 F4L USM?

[manav]

After a lot of discussion with people who I trust regarding this I have finally taken the plunge and ordered a brand new Canon EF 70-200 F4L USM. I dont know about anyone else but I consider this a lot of money and a huge investment. Please someone make me feel good about what I did. I know sunny loves his and I had a chance to use it too. Like I mentioned in my intro thread I would be shooting some panning shots and I've read up this lens can be used for decent macro and indoor as well.

Whats the deal about L lenses anyways?

[KrishnenduKes]

Query Approved

One has to know what is the use of a certain kind of lens and that depends on what you want to shoot and with time this blends into your style of photography.

To begin with one gets a set of two zoom lenses that generally covers up focal lengths varying from 16mm to 200mm. In today's technology, zoom lenses have reached a certain level of perfection and can almost match up to primes in clarity. But "fast" and good Zooms are always expensive. Primes are less expensive, relatively speaking, but you are limited in focal length, but you get truly unmatched quality, both in terms of it being fast (apertures at f2.8 or less), clarity, colour...

If you can afford a zoom, that is good. After a point of time of prolonged use, you can more or less find out at which focal length you tend to use it most. During my Olympus SLR days, I used to have a Vivitar 70-210 lens. And I realised that most of the time I was either using it around the 70mm length or around the 200mm focal. Thus, when I went in for change of equipment, I bought myself a 85mm and a 200mm primes! I did not bother getting a heavy zoom compromising on speed. Your 70-200 f4 is a relatively decent lens. But my 200 f2.8 is evidently faster :)! And cheaper too!!!

Chromatic Aberration: I will try to explain this in easy language. When light passes through a lens, the various colours bend at different angles since their wavelengths are different causing dispersion. This is called Chromatic Aberration. This is corrected by stacking another lens behind it. A lens is composed of sets of several elements all going in to make the desired focal length. The "L" lenses in Canon or the "ED" lens with Nikon are higher end lenses which are Extra Low Dispersion or very highly reduced Chromatic Aberration lenses. They have not only better clarity in image but more colour fidelity as well.

I hope certain things have got clear. I will try to add as and when I am capable of doing so.

[Aryan]

@manav: A big congrats for ordering the 70-200 F4L lens.. :) It's a wonderful lens. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is argued by many as Canon's best value "L" Lens combining professional grade build and optical qualities. They say images from the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens have great color and bokeh.

If one cannot afford a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L Lens or a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is the next best thing. If you do not need your 70-200mm lens to be faster than f/4 and don't need IS, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is your lens. The 70-200 f/4 L is a great value and is a lens that is more or less highly recommended. :)

As for the "L" tag, an L lens is a line of lenses specifically manufactured by Canon. L lenses are Canon's top-of-the-line lenses. The "L" officially stands for "Luxury", a reference to the lenses' high price and build. Some also say that perhaps 'L' stands for "Low Distortion" - achieved by the UD lens elements found in these lenses.

Sunny extensively uses this very lens for his work, and the results are all over for you to see.. ;)

Basically, Canon's L series lenses are top of the line lenses, both performance and price wise! :D I think you've made an excellent decision going ahead with the 70-200 F4L..

[nav75]

Manav, I myself bought the same lense few weeks back after discussing it to death, bringing it to life and then again beating it to death, a few times, with a couple of good photographers :)

Suddenly my pictures were looking good. Following are a few examples

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3096692319_67f763706e_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/navendus/3096692319/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/3094443687_87c4872981_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/navendus/3094443687/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/3096692231_081d3629d9_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/navendus/3096692231/)

[powerslave]

Well I'll repeat what I said on facebook, it's like buying a track prepped bike. If you know you need the "premium" services offerred by a certain lens, then you won't feel the pinch of the cost at all.

The fact that you're feeling the pinch is due to you not being able to justify what the lens offers. And IMHO, till you learn to justify those features, you won't find it worth it. I almost bought that lens 1 month back and I couldn't justify the premium features as opposed to the 55-250IS. I use the 70-200 f/2.8L for sports, and so I won't be needed to buy my own for that purpose. So I bought a nice compromise. The 55-250 is reasonably sharp, offers a wider range has a 4-stop IS that REALLY works (from experience and reviews), and is small, compact and really more than I need at this point.

Sure it doesn't have the constant minimum aperture of the f/4L, but that's not a biggie for me as it is used mostly for shooting outdoors. Also it doesn't offer the resolution and clarity of the 7-2 at 200mm, but it's 1/3rd the price so who's complaining?

For me, buying a lens means planning it out, and NEEDING every feature of the lens. I need an f/2.8, but I can't afford it, so no point settling for f/4, just because it is halfway there. I settled for the 55-250 for the time being and will buy the f/2.8 when I'm in greener land.

You need to ask yourself, do you need it? Of course you could use it, everyone could use it, but do you need it?

[manav]

@Ken : I agree with you, I also sometimes feel that I never use the range of most of the lenses I use. I usually find myself at the extreme ends. I am very wary of swapping out lens when outdoors. I would die if a speck of dust would get into my sensor. Maybe its just me, and I cant afford carring around different body's with different glass attached. We should have a thread up on how to change a lens while outdoors soon! Thanks a lot for the info though. We should have a Canon v/s Nikon flame war soon just because I seceretly envy your equipment :)

@Aryan : I could have gotten the IS or the 2.8 IS. But honestly speaking I dont think I really needed it. I mean sunny uses a F4L and shoots everything under the sun, if its good enough for him its great for me as well. Getting it down to basic fact that this is a hobby and I could not justify paying 1000$ plus for it. I've taken my 40D outdoors only twice since I got it two months back! I hate myself.

@Nav: The contrast/colors in the images attached seems absolute yum. I am happy I bought it!

@PS: I agree, maybe its just because I dont have it in my hands just yet. I am sure when it gets here I will go all Max Biaggi on unsuspecting victims.

Thanks all for reassuring me. I hope I do justice to the monster thats headed my way. I am kind-of depressed since last night and took the cam out for a couple of shots and hated myself. I felt much better with the D40 I had atleast in that case I could blame the damn camera but with the 40D I just feel like a little boy on the first day of school.

[Psycho_McCrazy]

the 70-200/4 (both the IS and nonIS) are reputed to be the sharpest zooms ever built by canon, and perhaps by anyone. you would not go wrong with this lens.

the higher ISO capabilities of the cameras today can easily offset the requirement of the 2.8, except for indoor sports that are not too brightly lit - which is a very limited field - here the 2.8 helps to achieve the highest possible shutterspeed with boosted ISO to achieve stopping motion, and the 2.8 aperture also helps the extra sensitive focal points to act at the maximum

IS can be handy sometimes if you are shooting still subjects in lower light, but that totally depents on what you are shooting. for moving subjects, IS is useless.

as for the changing the lens outdoors, there was a suggestion at some other forum that I hang around that one should learn to do it without looking at it and then use a film changing bag to do it. not foolproof, but if the bag is clean, it sure provides a lot of added protection

[KrishnenduKes]

I am very wary of swapping out lens when outdoors. I would die if a speck of dust would get into my sensor. Maybe its just me, and I cant afford carring around different body's with different glass attached. We should have a thread up on how to change a lens while outdoors soon!

Sensors WILL get dirty, sooner or later. No matter how careful you are with it. And you WILL change lenses.

I have put up a thread here:
http://www.thephotographer.in/darkroom/showthread.php?t=68

IMP @ ALL: We will not tolerate flame wars of the Nikon vs Canon kinds. Each manufacturer has its pros and cons. If someone has knowledge about Nikon lenses, feel free to start a discussion on a separate Nikon lenses thread.

[Sunny]

I ad shot this image at the Ducati launch inside a hotel in low light at ISO 400, 70mm using the 70-200 f4 mounted on a Canon 350D and 1/250 SS:

http://www.thephotographer.in/galleries/data/500/ducati.jpg

The bokeh is sweet, and the sharpness is also good and I love the lens.

It recently fell of my tank bag and the UV filter glass was shattered, but nothing at all happened to the focusing mech or the optics (thankfully).

This would not have been the fate of the less if it was an IS.

Go for it Manav!

[Sarao]

Sorry for interrupting, but as far as my small brain head knows, L lenses are typically for printing purpose isnt it? Because when I observed some shots of L vs non-L, they were pretty same. And on asking on other forums, people say, that it is for those, who get image printed and not for digital use. a normal lens would serve as good as L in digital purpose.

Correct me please :)

[manav]

@Ken : I was just kidding. To each its own as they say.

@Sunny : Ouch, I would have died before the thing hit the floor if that ever happened to me.

@Sarao : Everyone agrees that the L series lens are supposed to be the "Luxury" part of the canon line up. They will always have some or the other significant improvents on build etc. I have also noticed the L series usually have no moving barrely hence the parts usually dont get free soon. Just my two cents.

[KrishnenduKes]

Sorry for interrupting, but as far as my small brain head knows, L lenses are typically for printing purpose isnt it? Because when I observed some shots of L vs non-L, they were pretty same. And on asking on other forums, people say, that it is for those, who get image printed and not for digital use. a normal lens would serve as good as L in digital purpose.

Correct me please :)

L is for Extra Low Dispersion of the Chromatic Aberration as mentionned here: http://thephotographer.in/darkroom/showpost.php?p=400&postcount=2

The difference you have to check with two lenses of the same (or similar) focal length, L and non-L and difference is there especially for zooms. It has atleast one Ultra Low Dispersion glass element combined with several Super Low Dispersion Glass elements. Do not ask me how they do it, I am not a Canon Lens Engineer. And they are also often dust and weather proof to a large extent with quite a robust build.

[Sarao]

Alrite, even I had ordered one 70-200 F/4 NON-IS

HUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...!!

Hope to get it by end of the Jan, coz sis is getting from Australia!


WAITINGGGGG.... http://forum.lovepatiala.com/images/smilies/Smileys/nerv.gif

[vitesh]

@manav: For how much moolah ur paying for the lens. As this lens is in my wishlist too..Will be ordering it soon.

[manav]

ssshhh.

I paid 500$ for it brand new with a hood. Adorama had a 1 day deal. Amazon selling for 560ish with free 2 day shipping (to USA)

[Sarao]

And from where you have got it? Online or someone getting it down for you?

[manav]

Someone got it down for me. Ok I have to make a confession, I sold my whole kit in a distress sale. I sold everything for 71, I was thinking of putting it up here but the Buy Sell section was not working. Hope it was worth it. Got the baby on the right.



I promise ill be back soon with a Bang. For sometime now I will be a spectator here. I am really really sad to see it go. Never got to use the L. Its arriving on 12 let me know if anyone wants it at a bargin price :D

[Vicky]

Damn!:eek:

That's some equipment you got there! Congrats mate... it sounds like a superb deal at 71k;):D

[Sarao]

You want to sell 70-200? Let me know, I still havent got it, if it worked for me, I'll catch it up. BUT correct me if I am wrong.. :D

[manav]

I sold my entire kit (check it in my intro thread)
I bought this car,
The 70-200 is up for sale?

[Aryan]

Ok let me put it into simple terms.

I sold my entire kit (check it in my intro thread)
I bought this car,
The 70-200 is up for sale?
Simple enough?

Why do you have to make such a big deal about posting about my car? I just showed it because all my dear friends here deserve a explanation why I sold the kit. And I would eventually delete my post anyways.

Yes, now it's much clearer. Thanks! And no, I did not make any 'deal' out of your any post (be it this one or any other). It's just that it was really confusing to see all of it in a thread which was I thought dedicated to the said lens in question!

I am sorry if you felt otherwise. Sincere apologies.

[Xavier]

The 70-200 is up for sale


Can you tell us what kind of dough you're looking for the 70-200? Or can you please PM me the price? :)

p.s : How the hell did you manage to get that car in 71k?!! :O Even getting a second hand Zen in 71k is tough at times!

[Sarao]

Ot ot ot...:p

[Xavier]

Ot ot ot...:p

OT in Postscript is allowed :p

[manav]

OMG Ken and Sunny are going to kill me for this. I didnt get the car in 71K I needed the cash to buy the car. And the lens is coming on 12 am much better financially right now thinking of picking up the 400D for now. It would break my heart as I always wanted a L.

[Vicky]

..much better financially right now thinking of picking up the 400D for now. It would break my heart as I always wanted a L.

Don't do it mate! I would suggest you rather get the XSi / 450D with the 18-55 IS. I've used it for a few days, and found it a sunstantial upgrade over my 400D.

Its got the following improvements over the 400D:

- much better sensor with better resolving power
- 14bit Raw Files
- DIGIC III Processor for snappy performance
- lower noise at high ISO
- spot metering
- Auto ISO
- Highlight tone priority
- better IQ
- slightly bigger viewfinder
- slightly faster continuous shooting
- better more comfortable grip
- Higher capacity battery
- and lastly, a bigger & brighter 3" LCD with Live view. Don't discount this feature too fast- Its indispensable for critical manual focus at 10x magnification on LCD for macro / super telephoto shots:)

Internationally, its about $600 for the 18-55 IS kit:)