Canon 70-200f/4L
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:50 amI'd used the 2.8 version previously along with other pretty decent L lenses, had read and heard good reports on the quality of the f/4 non IS, but wasn't expecting too much, likely a perception i had because of it's relatively low price.
But i quickly learned there are exceptions to the old adage, 'you get what you pay for'. With this lens you get a whole lot more, and then some. It's the usual L build quality, sharp down to f/4 and out to 200mm, focus is quick and accurate, excellent clarity, nice brokeh for an f/4, very light and in most aspects, appears to be the equal of my general walk around 24-105f/4L IS.
I avoided the f/2.8 primarily for the reasons of not wanting to lug it's weight all day at the cricket, (i can enter the field, so don't require a longer focal length) football and other daylight events which will be it's principle use.
I'm pleasantly surprised with the f/4, to say the least and thus far believe it's the best value dollars I've ever spent on photographic gear. It simply fights way above it's price.
A play around test shot from the back yard, hand held @ 200mm 1/2000 f/6.3 ISO 200 ( @2,000 to avoid shaky hands at 200mm when too lazy to get out the tripod) The cricket shots linked below are also with the the f/4.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=41641
But i quickly learned there are exceptions to the old adage, 'you get what you pay for'. With this lens you get a whole lot more, and then some. It's the usual L build quality, sharp down to f/4 and out to 200mm, focus is quick and accurate, excellent clarity, nice brokeh for an f/4, very light and in most aspects, appears to be the equal of my general walk around 24-105f/4L IS.
I avoided the f/2.8 primarily for the reasons of not wanting to lug it's weight all day at the cricket, (i can enter the field, so don't require a longer focal length) football and other daylight events which will be it's principle use.
I'm pleasantly surprised with the f/4, to say the least and thus far believe it's the best value dollars I've ever spent on photographic gear. It simply fights way above it's price.
A play around test shot from the back yard, hand held @ 200mm 1/2000 f/6.3 ISO 200 ( @2,000 to avoid shaky hands at 200mm when too lazy to get out the tripod) The cricket shots linked below are also with the the f/4.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=41641