anyone use a canon 70-200 f4

sikahunter

hey looking on feed back on this lens the canon 70-200 f4 as the 70-200is is way out my pocket range has any one samples of the type of pix you can get with it thanks in advance simon

stcstc

i have one


its is amazingly sharp


autofocus is very very quick


i have used it and the 2.8 version, and the f4 is sharper

sikahunter

looking for this for wild life and landscape would it do as its 400 euro cheaper then the 2.8 but will still take a long ass time to save up for it

Pete67

There is a camera shop in the Square, Tallaght selling a second hand 70-200 2.8L (non IS) for 899 if thats any help to you. You might even be able to bargain a bit as it's been in the window for a while now.

sikahunter

at the min pete im short 879 euros :)but thank you

ThOnda

STSC - the f4 is sharper even when you close the 2.8 down to f4?

stcstc

yea


ask fajitas, he tried both too

MartMax

there's a lot of say that f4 version is the sharpest one of the canon 70-200mm. can't vouch on the f2.8 as i only had the f4 but i'd say the f4 sharpness is probably almost on par with the popular prime 50mm f1.8.

this is at f4 with 100mm focal length. the f2.8 would produce a creamier background thou.



Ian of Flash Camera has the f4 non-IS brand new for 400-ish pound.

elderlemon

I have both (:)) and prefer the F4. The sharpness is simply the best and I also prefer the bokeh and colours. Just a fantastic lens. I only switch to the 2.8 when I know I'll actually need to use it at 2.8.

sikahunter wrote: »

hey looking on feed back on this lens the canon 70-200 f4 as the 70-200is is way out my pocket range has any one samples of the type of pix you can get with it thanks in advance simon

jpb1974

The Canon 70-200 F4 L is one of Canon's best value L lenses.

They can be picked up 2nd hand for about €400 and are well worth the money.

Sample image I took with this lens -

Borderfox

I would agree too the f4 is superbly sharp, lighter too.

mr l

Looking at purchasing one also but was wondering is it worth going the extra mile for the [IS] and more to the point is it worth the extra bucks?

Effects

I went for the 2.8 with IS. Main reason was so it would be easier to shoot handheld with it and in lower light at gigs. It is heavy but I knew that when I bought it. At the time the money wasn't that much of a consideration.

wersal gummage

yeah i have one about 18 months. nice lense. i wouldn't bother with the 2.8 because it is too heavy for what i'd want.