[BigMike]

And its Seeeeeexy!

To the skeptics from when I ordered it, I had no problems with BPAV.com, it came in two days, and has an original US Warranty card.

Anyway, I got a Canon 70-200 F/4, and the clarity on this thing is unbelievable! I got it in time to shoot monster park next week, but I wanted to try it out before then, so I took it to the zoo today.

The clarity, color, and clearness are immaculate. definantly the best lens i've ever shot with

 

[biggins]

word dog jus twent and got my tele-zoom back from getting repaired...awesome

 

[Bicyclist]

You and your fancy telephoto make me filled with envy. Lucky!

 

[narlus]

it's a great lens...don't listen to the haters who pay triple for one more stop and IS!

 

[I Are Baboon]

Post more zoo pics!

 

[BigMike]

Post more zoo pics!

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2244462#post2244462

 

[VaNIlLin81]

Should have got the 2.4 IS and USM it's a great lense. All depends on your budget.

 

[narlus]

the f/4 lens does have USM...it's a very fast focusing lens...if you are doing a lot of indoor shooting, then getting the f/2.8 may make sense, and if you don't have a steady hand, the IS helps immeasurably (on stationary subjects). but is it worth another $1000?

not to most people, i am guessing.

 

[splat]

the IS helps immeasurably (on stationary subjects). but is it worth another $1000?

not to most people, i am guessing.

BINGO!!!! no way I could justify that !!

 

[Transcend]

Should have got the 2.4 IS and USM it's a great lense. All depends on your budget.

You mean 2.8? The F4 is USM. IS is basically useless unless you are shooting stationarry objects.

He saved $1000 and gets the exact same quality. Most pros I work with have the non IS 2.8, fyi.


BigMike/Splat - the F4 is an amazing lens, i owned one for a good year and dumped it for the 2.8 later on (need high shutter speed for bike stuff in crappy weather). I got almost as much as i paid for it - you will LOVE that lens. My 70-200 is the most used lens in my bag - it even trumps the 300.

 

[narlus]

You mean 2.8? The F4 is USM. IS is basically useless unless you are shooting stationarry objects.

He saved $1000 and gets the exact same quality. Most pros I work with have the non IS 2.8, fyi.


BigMike/Splat - the F4 is an amazing lens, i owned one for a good year and dumped it for the 2.8 later on (need high shutter speed for bike stuff in crappy weather). I got almost as much as i paid for it - you will LOVE that lens. My 70-200 is the most used lens in my bag - it even trumps the 300.

:nonono:

you don't read my posts, do you?

 

[Silver]

not to most people, i am guessing.

Wedding photographers are the only one that comes to mind right away...

 

[narlus]

i wouldn't think you'd need that much reach though; isn't the 24-70L a better choice?

 

[Silver]

i wouldn't think you'd need that much reach though; isn't the 24-70L a better choice?

I've seen them used pretty often in the church for altar shots. Keeps the photographer out of the way of the actual ceremony a little more.

 

[SkaredShtles]

:nonono:

you don't read my posts, do you?

He's probably got you on his Ignore list.

 

[BigMike]

Should have got the 2.4 IS and USM it's a great lense. All depends on your budget.

Well, Like Transcend Said, its a 2.8, not 2.4, and it is USM

If I were to get a 2.8, I would have gone for the NON-IS version. Its lighter, and better for what I'm going to be using it for. I'm mostly going to be doing Dance and Theatre, which the IS is pointless for. Second to that is Biking, both of which I try to show movement. Yes, I do a lot of freeze frame stuff with dancers in mid-spin or riders in mid air, but I follow them with the camera to get that perfect spot. So for me, the IS is an un-needed feature.

Other stuff I'll be doing includes Weddings and Parties, which I will mostly be using a tripod or Monopod for.

I do shoot a lot in the dark, indoors, which the extra stop would have been nice for, but I just can't justify spending $1,000 more on a lens for one stop. The lens I was using previously was a Quantaray f/3.5-4.5ish and I did perfectly fine with that. So far, with my one experiance with the Canon L lens has FAR surpassed the other, and will definantly serve my purposes well as a beginning pro.

But thanks for pissing on my parade anyway

 

[narlus]

Well, Like Transcend Said, its a 2.8, not 2.4, and it is USM

hey!! what about post #8?

 

[MikeOK]

Sweet. Which body did you use?

 

[narlus]

canon 10D

i dig the opanda EXIF plugin

 

[binary visions]

Should have got the 2.4 IS and USM it's a great lense. All depends on your budget.

Transcend & BigMike are right, it's f/2.8 not f/4 and they both have USM. I'm glad they pointed that out.

 

[narlus]

Transcend & BigMike are right, it's f/2.8 not f/4 and they both have USM. I'm glad they pointed that out.

:mumble: you bastid!

 

[MikeOK]

canon 10D

i dig the opanda EXIF plugin

I had that before my machine crashed and now I can't find the link. Does anyone have a link?

 

[binary visions]

I had that before my machine crashed and now I can't find the link. Does anyone have a link?

It took you longer to post that then it would to put "opanda exif" into Google

Link

 

[MikeOK]

bite me

 

[N8 v2.0]

Aren't Sigma lenses just as good and a little cheaper?

I know a couple pro photographers who use them for commerical work all the time.

 

[SkaredShtles]

hey!! what about post #8?

Looks like they all have you on the Ignore list. It's just you and me, Kid.

 

[Transcend]

Aren't Sigma lenses just as good and a little cheaper?

I know a couple pro photographers who use them for commerical work all the time.

In general, no. There are a few examples. The sigma 70-200 f2.8 really shines, and is not far from being as good as the canon version.

The major difference is that the cannon L stuff has a MUCH better build quality (again, in general) than pretty much all of the off brand stuff, the same way Nikon has a huge advantage on it's end of things for their cameras.

Narlus: i had the window open before you posted, then i went and grabbed a snack and came back 30 mins later, sorry!

 

[narlus]

the one place where sigma does a nice job i think is the wide angles...i've heard great things about the 10-20mm sigma (i really like the tokina 12-24 i've got), and i am totally impressed w/ the build quality, image quality, sharpness and color of the sigma 30mm f/1.4 prime i have. it's a great lens, and canon doesn't really have anything in that ballpark (unless you use the 35L f/1.4 on a FF camera, and are willing to spend triple the money).

one thing i've heard about the non-branded lenses is that they could be sensitive to AF issues on next-generation canon bodies (ie, compatibility-wise).

 

[maxyedor]

Narlus: i had the window open before you posted, then i went and grabbed a snack and came back 30 mins later, sorry!

You don't have a mini-fridge next to your computer for snacks and beer?

BigMike, congrats on the lens, and if you haven't allready done it trow a decent UV filter on the front of that thing. For some odd reason that lens, along with a few other L's, is a PITA to clean.

 

[Transcend]

It's hard to clean due to one of the anti glare coatings on it...it just smears.

I pulled UV filters off of all of my lenses though on account of they SUCKED. Causing flare and AF issues. They were BW filters so who knows why they were being a PITA.

That said, I need to pick up a new polarizer before i head to NZ next week. Sweet, $200 piece of glass. ugh.

Oh and no mini fridge, laptop until my Mac Pro arrives Monday.

 

[merrrrjig]

ya, I would say canon lenses are VERY durable, knowing that my 70-200 2.8L was just ran over by a bus an hour ago, it was sitting off the dirt road and this bus comes charging up and hits my bag w/ the front tire, though I dont think it really hit the lens, it did go over the bag. Scarriest thing I have ever seen

 

[maxyedor]

It's hard to clean due to one of the anti glare coatings on it...it just smears.

I pulled UV filters off of all of my lenses though on account of they SUCKED. Causing flare and AF issues. They were BW filters so who knows why they were being a PITA.

Oh and no mini fridge, laptop until my Mac Pro arrives Monday.

Then they must use a diferent coating on some of the lenses, because my 14mm, my 24-70, and the big primes are easy to clean, and I don't get the streaks on the glass.

I've been using Calumet SuperMC filters they are about $50 for the 77mm ones and I get ne flair and great image quality.

Any idea when they are coming out with a native Photoshop for the intel Macs? as soon as that hapens and the 2nd gen. Mac Pros come out I'll be ordering one as well.

 

[BigMike]

I'm shooting with a 10D for now, which gets the job done. I'd like to upgrade in the future to a 5D, but I really have no reason to as of now.

RE: Filters. I know filters are good and all that, but I don't understand putting a $50 piece of plastic on the end of a $1000 lens....... Are there any really good filters out there I should be on the lookout for?

Has Narlus Posted in this thread yet? I figured he would have

 

[Transcend]

Then they must use a diferent coating on some of the lenses, because my 14mm, my 24-70, and the big primes are easy to clean, and I don't get the streaks on the glass.

I've been using Calumet SuperMC filters they are about $50 for the 77mm ones and I get ne flair and great image quality.

Any idea when they are coming out with a native Photoshop for the intel Macs? as soon as that hapens and the 2nd gen. Mac Pros come out I'll be ordering one as well.

You are correct sir, different lenses have different coatings. No idea why, but this is what my CPS rep told me. The 300 2.8 and the like have a hard coat on the front element. The 70-200 has a weird sorta gel coating.

Universal photoshop et al will not be until CS3, which i believe is supposed to ship end of Q1 2007. Second gen mac pro is probably due about then as well - althought not too sure what they will be changing on it besides revisions if there is any problems. Now that they are on the Intel roadmap, it is easy to see what hardware is coming up.

Bigmike: Some lenses (17-40 for example) need the UV filter on the end to be completely weather sealed on the pro bodies (1d and above). A polarizer is another great tool. UV filters are subject of a big debate. Some people use them 100% of the time to protect the lens and see no difference. I was using really nice filters, and still saw issues. Personally, I will only use them when conditions go south (sand, rain, snow etc).

 

[maxyedor]

RE: Filters. I know filters are good and all that, but I don't understand putting a $50 piece of plastic on the end of a $1000 lens....... Are there any really good filters out there I should be on the lookout for?

I use a $50 peice of glass to protect my $1000+ lenses from flying debris, and other unsavory things. I shoot a lot of rally racing, MX, FMX, Skating, and a little bit of biking so flying rocks are a very real possibility. I'd rather have a $200 bill for filters (as I did at the RIM rally) than have 4 lenses out of comission while the front elements are getting replaced. Also shooting PJ stuff my lenses take a beating, so hoods and filters are a huge help keeping my lenses pretected from scratches and chips.

Also the quality of filyers isn't that bad, the 70-200 f4 you just bought has 16 peices of glass in it so each peice of glas is less than $40. As for filters as I'm a fan of the Calumet SuperMC UV filters. they are decently cheap, and have great image quality.

 

[BigMike]

Also the quality of filyers isn't that bad, the 70-200 f4 you just bought has 16 peices of glass in it so each peice of glas is less than $40. As for filters as I'm a fan of the Calumet SuperMC UV filters. they are decently cheap, and have great image quality.

never thought of it that way