Photography Thailand Forum

[anna]

Does anyone own this or know anything about it?  Feedbacks please. Thanks.

[anna]

Actually I meant f/4L.   (with an "L")

[David Salmanowitz]

Anna--The f/4 lens is about half the weight of the f2.8 IS Canon 70-200, and about a third of the price--you can pick it up in USA now for less than $550 with Canon's rebate they are offering on asstd. lenses. It really depends what you want to shoot with the lens. But that IS gives you another 3 stops latitude and lets you handhold many shots, where they would be blurry with the f/4. One nice thing about faster lenses is they let more light into the viewfinder and you can see better, one not nice thing is they are heavier and cost more. I had considered the f/4 lens but decided to go for it and get the f2.8 IS lens--I am very happy I did as it is a fine lens. http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=bc6e0e0906d04f38c2776dea825539c6&showtopic=10804&pid=65811&st=0&#entry65811

[Marc Schultz]

David, as I was reading this thread I was thinking I wish I could get a 70-200mm L lens with IS @ F/4. If I could I would be happy to leave my 70-200 F/2.8 L (older model non-IS) lens behind.

At F/4 it would be lighter weight and I hardly ever shoot at F/2.8 anyway, especially using a telephoto lens that long since the slightest move of the camera, once you have the focus locked, and the intended focal point on the subject changes.

[anna]

Thanks, David and Marc.  I did have the chance to use the 70-200 2.8 IS a friend loaned me.  I'm glad I practiced on it.  I don't think I could ever get used to the weight.  The thing WEIGHED me down.  I do some awkward position sometimes when I shoot to get a good angle.  And with this weighty lens, couple times I almost lost my balance.  Marc, you suggested that 24-105 f4 IS L Canon, which is also good.  But currently I own 24-70 f2.8 L, so I think it would be better to add the 70-200 f/4L USM telefoto instead.  24-105 would not be too far off than my existing 24-70.  Do I make sense?  Remember you are talking to someone who had her first SLR couple months ago only and just starting to get familiar with the lenses.  I plan to order through Amazon in the next couple days.  The other lens I am ordering is EF 50mm 1.8II (so cheap and so light).  Looking foward to your response.

[Marc Schultz]

Yes, I agree, if you already have the 24-70mm, the 70-200 F/4 would make more sense, but not that it is not an IS lens as the F/2.8 is. Also, the advantage to the 24-105mm lens is that it is very light weight, probably even a bit lighter weight than the 24-70mm. So it would give you more zooming power without added weight, but ideally the 70-200mm lens would give you much more telephoto effect. Hope that helps.

[David Salmanowitz]

Marc--"I wish I could get a 70-200mm L lens with IS @ F/4"--that makes two of us.  :)  The only time I am usually at 2.8 would be for composing the shot, then I will use the depth of field preview button to check things out as I always have a smaller aperture. This scenario would be with landscape photography shooting on aperture priority, and the camera would be on a tripod. But the times I do handhold the lens I am glad for the IS.
Anna--if you will be using a tripod a lot then the f/4 lens should be fine. It can also be used for handheld at a higher shutter speed to avoid blurrry photos. As Marc noted the 24-105 lens is a great all around lens, and lighter and easier on the shoulder carrying it around all day than the 24-70. In reviews I have read the 24-70 is still sharper around the edges, but not annoyingly so like with some other brand lenses. The 50mm 1.8 is light and fast--in the "old days" that or an f2.8 was usually a standard lens that could come with a new SLR. I think you may be a bit spoiled by your 24-70 zoom as though it is a lot heavier it is also more versatile than the 50mm. Yet it all depends what you will use the lens for. Hope this helps--and the more confusing photography can seem sometimes the more fun it becomes. 

[nancyzarny]

I am the friend out shooting with Anna who loaned her the 70-200 2.8L IS It is the best peice of photo equiptment I ever purchased. One can always upgrade to a better, newer camera but lenses should be and investment for the long haul. I hate to use a tripod and so far have taken lots of night shots,  on my 20 D and have been thrilled and amazed with the results. Its worth waiting to buy the better lens even if you have to wait and this is supposed to be Canon's best one.

The weight is an issue but it's only a few pounds. The way I look at it, men have been hauling this stuff around for ages and if I want to do photography, I just have to swim or lift weights and I have indeed gotten used to carrying the thing around. A good back pack helps too. I tell my art students, 'You have to build the proper muscles to hold a brush or crayon. I look at photography the same way.

What is the 24-105 you are talking about? Is it an L series? What are some recommendations for shorter lenses?

[canon]

Hi Nancy,

There is probably no need to explain what my problem with lenses is, I have a 350D and is still new
to the naked truth of photography but I would like to see some of your shoots with the 70-300L lens
without photoshop corrections if that is possible???

Thank you very big.

[canon]

70-200L ofcourse..

[silvero]

I was interested in checking out the 70-200mm f/4L due to it's small size and weight and also it's very reasonable price, so I recently tested it in a shop and am now totally sold, the image quality is out of this world, so good in fact that I may have even caught the 'L' disease from it.

[anna]

Thanks, everyone for the responses.  Always good to see both sides.  Really appreciate your time.  Anna

[canon]

Silvero,

Your post sounds encouraging, is it possible you make post a 'sample' of your magical lens? - unedited please

Thank you.

[silvero]

As I mentioned, I am now totally sold, however I haven't actually bought it yet!  I'm holding off only because this particular lens is relatively expensive in Thailand, with an international warranty it costs about 28,000 baht, and the equivalent US price is about 21,000 baht.  I don't mind paying a bit more for local support but 30% is a big whack.  I will be in Malaysia later this month so I'm going to check prices there before picking it up, either way I should have one in about a month.

I examined and deleted the test shots but don't worry, they were singularly unexciting as photos, mostly they were of a sign across the street which I've used for testing a few lenses, but the colours and sharpness from this lens were just brilliant.  The moment I have one I'll post some samples for you to examine.

[canon]

Thank Silvero I actually thought you had some test shoots somehow. Nevermind, I would be
quite interested to hear what prices are in Malaysia, in Singapore the 24-105L was SD 2050
(the cheapest I managed to find) and I thought it was abit too much for a beginner like me
not really knowing how to place my tumb right in the first place. But I am still looking.
In Penang I found video equipment slightly higher than in Bangkok thou.

Good luck.