Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM
#1
salve !

Chiedo un consiglio il Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM

Mi interessa l'uso prevalente del obiettivo in sostanza per cosa e consigliato

Grazie a tutti
#2
Personally I have used the 70-200 F/4L and F/4L IS for anything I could possibly use a lens for, landscapes, sports, nature, birds, portraits, candids, etc., and even indoor portraits without flash. IMO, the F/2.8 version isn't really fast enough to make a real impact when it comes to additional shutter speed, or very thin DoF - fast primes are better at this, as they are generally faster (and lighter and cheaper too). Current camera models are very good at high isos, so personally I don't consider the extra 1 stop to be a meaningful difference - with primes it is different, where it becomes 2 or more stops.



The IS of the F/4L IS is very good: I am (was) capable of shooting at 1/15s to 1/20s handheld at 200 mm, no problem. Obviously, that doesn't help freezing motion, but I did shoot portraits, indoors, at 1/40s to 1/50s with it, at moments where people would be still - this would not have bene possible with the non-IS version.



The only advantage of the F/2.8 versions is the extra thin DoF, or slight increase in shutter speed, which IMO is neither here nor there: at 200 mm when doing a head and shoulder shot at F/4 DoF is too thin for both nose and eyes in focus anyway. And as mentioned, there always is good high iso for faster shutter speeds, or even better, fast primes. Possibly the bokeh of the F/2.8 versions is a little nicer, especially with the F/2.8L IS II (at a price).



As to the two different F/4 versions, where the non-IS shines is in close focus with or without extension tubes. Especially at the long end, the F/4L IS tends to get a little mushy at MFD, which doesn't improve when using extension tubes. Further away the F/4L IS is sharper wide open than the F/4L non-IS, especially towards the corners. Around F/5.6 they are very much the same.



In short, if you want to do a lot of close-up or close focus work at the long end, get the non-IS version, otherwise get the IS version.



I used to have the non-IS version, which I replaced with the IS version once I noticed the small differences and of course the IS. However, I did get rid of the latter eventually after I got a 135L, which performs beautifully up close (with or without extension tubes) and far away, is 2 stops faster and has incredible bokeh. Between this lens, a 1.4X Extender, and a 50L, the 70-200 F/4L IS I had did not get any use anymore, so I sold it. Very good lens, but it became superfluous for me.



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1332275072' post='16892']

Personally I have used the 70-200 F/4L and F/4L IS for anything I could possibly use a lens for, landscapes, sports, nature, birds, portraits, candids, etc., and even indoor portraits without flash. IMO, the F/2.8 version isn't really fast enough to make a real impact when it comes to additional shutter speed, or very thin DoF - fast primes are better at this, as they are generally faster (and lighter and cheaper too). Current camera models are very good at high isos, so personally I don't consider the extra 1 stop to be a meaningful difference - with primes it is different, where it becomes 2 or more stops.



The IS of the F/4L IS is very good: I am (was) capable of shooting at 1/15s to 1/20s handheld at 200 mm, no problem. Obviously, that doesn't help freezing motion, but I did shoot portraits, indoors, at 1/40s to 1/50s with it, at moments where people would be still - this would not have bene possible with the non-IS version.



The only advantage of the F/2.8 versions is the extra thin DoF, or slight increase in shutter speed, which IMO is neither here nor there: at 200 mm when doing a head and shoulder shot at F/4 DoF is too thin for both nose and eyes in focus anyway. And as mentioned, there always is good high iso for faster shutter speeds, or even better, fast primes. Possibly the bokeh of the F/2.8 versions is a little nicer, especially with the F/2.8L IS II (at a price).



As to the two different F/4 versions, where the non-IS shines is in close focus with or without extension tubes. Especially at the long end, the F/4L IS tends to get a little mushy at MFD, which doesn't improve when using extension tubes. Further away the F/4L IS is sharper wide open than the F/4L non-IS, especially towards the corners. Around F/5.6 they are very much the same.



In short, if you want to do a lot of close-up or close focus work at the long end, get the non-IS version, otherwise get the IS version.



I used to have the non-IS version, which I replaced with the IS version once I noticed the small differences and of course the IS. However, I did get rid of the latter eventually after I got a 135L, which performs beautifully up close (with or without extension tubes) and far away, is 2 stops faster and has incredible bokeh. Between this lens, a 1.4X Extender, and a 50L, the 70-200 F/4L IS I had did not get any use anymore, so I sold it. Very good lens, but it became superfluous for me.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



Hi Wim, your comments reassured me to keep my AF-D 80-200mm f2.8 from upgrading to the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



Thanks,

Frank
#4
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1332296623' post='16894']

Hi Wim, your comments reassured me to keep my AF-D 80-200mm f2.8 from upgrading to the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



Thanks,

Frank

[/quote]

Not sure how Win's views on two different 70-200mm f4 L's, and how in his view they compare to the f2.8 pendant, influences you on your decision of choice between two f2.8 zooms... but oh well <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />



On the actual subject of your two f2.8's:

The one you have, the 80-200, is not as sharp over the whole range as the AF-S 70-200 VR II. The VR (1st version of the 70-200) is on FF not as sharp as the VR II on the long end, it has soft corners.

The VR II focusses faster and silent than your 80-200.



Depending on your usage, your 80-200mm f2.8 has one BIG advantage over the 70-200mm VR II. The VR II has a heavy focus breathing. Which means that the closer you focus, the wider your field of view becomes. At the 200mm setting, the lens goes down to a field of view resembling that of a 130mm lens.



For me, this would make the 70-200mm VR II not an option at all. Others, who only may use it as a tele lens, may brush that negative aside.
#5
I thought the original question was regarding a Canon lens...



BTW:

I would suggest to use the new Nikon 70-200 VR2 before claiming such a nonsense here. Focus breating is a non issue and only in a very few situations relevant. Always funny to hear statements from a heavy Canon user about Nikon lenses.





best regards

Claus
#6
[quote name='Claus' timestamp='1332323037' post='16898']

I thought the original question was regarding a Canon lens...



BTW:

I would suggest to use the new Nikon 70-200 VR2 before claiming such a nonsense here. Focus breating is a non issue and only in a very few situations relevant. Always funny to hear statements from a heavy Canon user about Nikon lenses.





best regards

Claus

[/quote]

Another silly post from you, thanks for that.



The focus breathing is a BIG issue for many, but not for all. That you belong to the group who do not find it an issue is FINE.

Just as it is fine for people who belong to the other group, to find it an issue for a 200mm lens. I have the same issue with the Sigma 70-200mm OS. And I have it because I a photographer, not because I own some items from a certain brand.

If I choose to use 200mm, I choose to use 200mm. Not 130mm. HUGE issue. And yes, I often (even mostly) use 200mm at or past the lens' MFD.



It is never funny, just sad, to hear statements of ignorant people who just rant because of some brand loyalty. And then claim the other person is posting out of some misplaced brand loyalty of some other brand.
#7
Maybe my post is silly but as I said I think you never used the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR2.



Your brand fana... errr loyality is ok for me. But bashing Nikon again and again (not only here but also in the dpreview-forum) is rather boring.



Maybe we can go to more substancial discussions in the future.







best regards

Claus
#8
[quote name='Claus' timestamp='1332341548' post='16901']

Maybe we can go to more substancial discussions in the future.

[/quote]



Instead of calling each other silly or brand bashers, can we maybe simply accept that focus breathing exists, is very obvious on both the Nikon 70-200 VR II and the Sigma 70-200 OS (and many other lenses) and almost non-existent on the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 IS II?



Whether it's an "issue" depends on the user. It's an issue for BC, but usually not for me (I owned and used the mentioned Nikons and the Sigma OS as well as non-OS).



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#9
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1332320672' post='16897']

[color="#0000ff"]Not sure how Wi[color="#ff0000"]m[/color]'s views on two different 70-200mm f4 L's, and how in his view they compare to the f2.8 pendant, influences you on your decision of choice between two f2.8 zooms... [/color]but oh well <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />



On the actual subject of your two f2.8's:

The one you have, the 80-200, is not as sharp over the whole range as the AF-S 70-200 VR II. The VR (1st version of the 70-200) is on FF not as sharp as the VR II on the long end, it has soft corners.

The VR II focusses faster and silent than your 80-200.



Depending on your usage, your 80-200mm f2.8 has one BIG advantage over the 70-200mm VR II. The VR II has a heavy focus breathing. Which means that the closer you focus, the wider your field of view becomes. At the 200mm setting, the lens goes down to a field of view resembling that of a 130mm lens.



For me, this would make the 70-200mm VR II not an option at all. Others, who only may use it as a tele lens, may brush that negative aside.

[/quote]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



Possibly not so much the comments on the zooms, but on the faster primes... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />.



Frank may well be saving for a Nikkor 135 F/2 now... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#10
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1332357972' post='16905']

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



Possibly not so much the comments on the zooms, but on the faster primes... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />.



Frank may well be saving for a Nikkor 135 F/2 now... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]

Haha, who knows <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)