Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens wanted

09/06/2013 05:06:50 PM · #1

Thinking of finally getting a new lens after 5 years of using the same 2 lenses. Thinking of the following lens

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens

Good choice? Anyone in UK selling one?

Thanks in advance. I have Canon 40D

09/06/2013 05:15:44 PM · #2

You do so much nice wide work that I have to question if a 10-22 might not be better for you.

With that being said? The 70-200 in all it's variations is an excellent lens, though I know I'd think very hard about going with the 2.8 version of any variety.

09/06/2013 05:22:12 PM · #3

Hey Cory
I was hoping for advice from you as you seem very knowledgeable

I wasn't really sure what to go for but just need to add a new lens to keep me sane. I will google 10-22 to see what it is.

I do like to take portraits and sheep and cow photos. Often find I am unable to fit all the cows into the picture as they are too close to me:)

09/06/2013 05:34:11 PM · #4

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Well, first, thanks. Complement me and I'll really give you some time here.

Ok, so first - the big advantages to the 70-200 are a longer reach, shallow DOF (better on the 2.8) and scene compression - which is what makes foreground and background objects look closer together - just the opposite of a wide angle effect.

Here's a couple of examples - both more extreme than the range you're looking at, but it illustrates the idea well.

- Taken @ 400mm, the 'near' trees are just at 1/3 of a mile - the boat is about 3 miles, and those buildings in the distance are just over 4 miles away. Notice how compressed the scene is?

- Way opposite side of the spectrum - this is 12mm on a full frame - this entire room is about 30 feet long. Notice the depth here?

--

Aside from that consideration, there's the use case scenarios - do you want to shoot in the field, or do you want to sit in the car and shoot?

Personally, I love both ends of the spectrum, but there's no doubt that my strongest work is at the wider end, and they're always more fun to shoot.

Frankly, for the money, the 100-400 is probably a better lens than the 70-200 in the f/4, but that's really debatable.

It may not sound like much, but the perspective difference between 17mm and 10mm is at least as dramatic as the difference between 85mm and 200mm, and IMO it's much more noticeable in the images produced.

Message edited by author 2013-09-06 17:34:39.

09/06/2013 05:41:21 PM · #5

10-22 appears to have a lot of negative reviews along the lines of the following

1. The lens suffers from variable sharpness across the frame. It is usually pin sharp in the centre, as you would expect, but deteriorates extremely rapidly to the left and right, sometimes more to the left, sometimes more to the right. Loss of sharpness is always worse at distance.
2. There is no clear and logical reason for variable results of sharpness. Results do not appear to be related to any parameter adjusted and tested with the exception of focal length - results were best at focal lengths greater than 18 mm, but I did not buy the lens for this focal range!
3. My kit lens (18-55 mm) gives consistently better results across the frame (also tested on this outing). Bearing in mind the EF 10-22 mm costs as much as my camera, kit lens, battery pack and accessories combined, you can imagine how frustrating this is.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/06/2013 05:46:02 PM · #6

Thanks Cory for the detailed reply

On reflection I do like to take photos in the field and not in the car. I am sure I would have a lot of fun taking close ups of animals. Bit concerned about the negative reviews of 10-22 so perhaps an alternative lens that is similar but less flaws

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/06/2013 06:52:06 PM · #7

Are you talking about the 10-22mm EF-S Canon ultrawide? That lens is the absolute star of its class. We've owned one since out first 20D and have never had cause to complain...

09/06/2013 07:47:24 PM · #8

Yeah, kinda what Bear said.

DXOmark rates the lens as nearly equivalent to the 17-85 you own, but overall just a smidge higher.

There isn't really anything better on the stupid wide end, unless you're willing to pay for that Canon 8-15L, and even that isn't a hell of a lot better, despite the L badge on it.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/06/2013 07:51:07 PM · #9

Some Canon users (here at DPC) get good results with this wide-angle lens.

Just a thought.

09/06/2013 07:55:01 PM · #10

I have a 70-200 F4 (not for sale) but I can assure you it is an amazing bit of kit that produces stunning images on a regular basis. mine is very new and could be tempted to get rid of it I live north of London

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

09/06/2013 09:36:55 PM · #11

Originally posted by MAK:

I have a 70-200 F4 (not for sale) but I can assure you it is an amazing bit of kit that produces stunning images on a regular basis. mine is very new and could be tempted to get rid of it I live north of London

Ok, you win the confusing post of the day award MAK...

Anyone wanna take bets on whether or not this lens is for sale?

Damon

Nikon D750

09/06/2013 10:44:02 PM · #12

I think he was the pub!!!

09/07/2013 02:47:53 AM · #13

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Are you talking about the 10-22mm EF-S Canon ultrawide? That lens is the absolute star of its class. We've owned one since out first 20D and have never had cause to complain...

Yes I think that is the one..

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens

If so then that is great news to hear it gets the thumbs up from your good self. Thank you sir

09/07/2013 02:50:56 AM · #14

Originally posted by MAK:

Thanks MAK - I read the 70 - 200 F4 was the equivalent of the nifty fifty in zoom lenses.

Cory has however made me consider a wide angle lens as an alternative as most of my photos tend to be up close and personal rather than shooting stuff from a distance. So are you interested in selling it? Hehe just trying to be as confusing as your post:)

09/07/2013 02:57:26 AM · #15

Sorry, long day..

I meant to say i hadn't thought about selling it but would get rid of it if Paul wanted it... :)

09/07/2013 03:07:53 AM · #16

Hehe no problem MAK. The reviews on Amazon of that lens are fantastic and it says it is good for portrait shots (which I love!) however I am not sure if they are referring to using it on full frame. It also says it is good for landscape too which could work for me. I don't really have a clue about lenses to be honest and find it very difficult to decide. As I may not be able to afford another lens for some time again I need to decide wisely.

I will certainly inquire if you would like to sell yours if I do opt to get this one. Thanks

09/07/2013 04:21:34 AM · #17

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

You are most welcome to come and have a play around in my lens bag to see what lens would best suit your needs. The best lens for wide stuff at the moment bar NONE (IMO) is the new Sigma A series 18-35 f1.8. I have a very good relation with Sigma UK so could get you one at a nice price. The 70-200 can be used in landscapes for pana-stitching but personally I use it for Zoo & street stuff. Om a crop it is usable as a portrait lens but can be a bit tight if you don't have a lot of room.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/07/2013 11:12:45 AM · #18

Originally posted by MAK:

... The best lens for wide stuff at the moment bar NONE (IMO) is the new Sigma A series 18-35 f1.8. ...

GASP! NO! Not Sigma ... really?

09/07/2013 11:15:00 AM · #19

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by MAK:
... The best lens for wide stuff at the moment bar NONE (IMO) is the new Sigma A series 18-35 f1.8. ...

GASP! NO! Not Sigma ... really?

:)

Great lens for sure, like all of Sigma's new Art Series lenses.

I didn't suggest it because it covers a FL he's already got covered.

I think trying MAK's 70-200 is a great idea, and be sure to try out that 8-16 Siggy while you're there.

MAK, very kind offer.

09/07/2013 11:34:31 AM · #20

OK so it's not super wide, more like a mid but it's a stellar lens. The 8-16 will make you smile too.

09/07/2013 02:20:35 PM · #21

Hey MAK - that is very kind of you to invite me to check out your lenses. I do get up to London quite often for my regular city fix. I am sure there is a shop in our nearest town that lets you try different lenses so guess I should try that first as I can do that next week and once I get an idea in my head to buy something it usually happens quick before the VAT man takes all my spare cash.

Still haven't a clue if a zoom like the 70-200 is what would suit me best or the 10-22. I did notice today when out at some country park that there were quite a few photo opportunities missed due to not having a good enough zoom but all these were in the middle of the lake so no surprise there. Â£500/Â£600 is nothing to be sniffed at so want to make sure I buy something that will add to my photography skills and not be something sitting in the bag gathering dust.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/07/2013 02:52:09 PM · #22

Out of interest, I took this photo today of a swan on a lake. Would the 70-200 have enabled me to get a much better photo in terms of getting up close and personal?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/07/2013 02:58:59 PM · #23

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Out of interest, I took this photo today of a swan on a lake. Would the 70-200 have enabled me to get a much better photo in terms of getting up close and personal?

Go here for a display of the effect of different focal lengths on angle of view.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

09/07/2013 03:08:46 PM · #24

If you take and draw a rectangle about 42% of the width and height of your posted photo, that would be about the field of view you could expect at 200mm. For this shot, it would mean that the swan would probably just fit in the frame (almost filling the height of the frame). Looking at it another way, you'd have about 5.5 times the pixels on the subject.