Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
235 of 245 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good Lens but......, August 7, 2006
Like many people my decision on a telephoto zoom lens came down to buying the Canon 70-200mm f/4L or the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The trade offs seemed clear at first. The former performs slightly better (see Canon website for MTF data), is better designed & built, is faster and has the "L" lens status. User comments and ratings (at more than one site) are slightly more favorable for the L lens. The 70-300mm has an improved IS and of course a longer focal length. Both cost about the same so money was not a factor in my decision.
I eventually decided on the L lens and was initially disappointed. Photos ranged from wonderful to not very good at all. In fact, I almost returned the lens. Eventually I figured out the problem. My yard is heavily shaded so most of the initial photo's were taken in low light and I had selected shutter speeds that were too slow. To avoid camera shake you need to shoot at the reciprocal of the focal length or faster. Sounds simple but with the Digital Rebel XT (which I was using) you need to consider the camera's 1.6 multiplication factor. So at 200mm you need a shutter speed of 1/320 or faster not 1/200 like I initially thought. Once I made the speed adjustment things changed for the better.
Still I have some mixed feelings about my decision. When the light is good this is a fantastic lens but with the IS feature offered on the 70-300mm I would probably get photos that I will miss with this lens.
I can't fault the performance of this lens for its limitations and I have given it 5 stars. In other words it does what it is supposed to do very well but my message to other buyers is to consider where you are most likely to use the lens before buying. Remember IS becomes increasingly important as you extend the focal length. If your camera is already extending it by a factor of 1.6 you may find IS a very attractive feature.
(Note the 70-300mm has a recall on certain model numbers because of problems when using the lens in a portrait position.) By the way, I purchased from Amazon and it was a flawless transaction!
|
|
|
103 of 105 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Perfect on-the-go lens, July 22, 2005
I have to say, "Wow I love this lens."
I'd recommend this lens for three kinds of people:
1) People who want to get a taste of the L-series lenses who need a lens in the 70-200mm focal length relatively inexpensively;
2) People who already own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens who have to lug that huge thing around for a long time;
3) People who want a L-series 70-200mm lens who don't NEED f/2.8 or IS.
Call me a wimp, but shooting 1000-2000 shots a day in the field with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS gets tiring, especially if you're hand-holding. This lens is relatively inexpensive for being L-series glass, the difference in optical quality is almost imperceptible from the f/2.8, and it's sturdy and ergonomic enough to use all day long.
When I plan on shooting the whole day, especially over the course of several days, this is the lens I take with me, NOT the f/2.8 IS. It's shorter, narrower, and lighter. While you may not feel the difference when shooting for a couple of hours, take two people of equal endurance and strength and give them the f/4 and f/2.8 IS and send them out for a day and you know who is going to come back with the sore arms when the day is over.
On a 1.6x FOVCF body, the 70-200mm focal range makes this lens a little tight; but at 1.3x or 1.0x FOVCF, this focal length range is quite awesome. When I travel, I like to pair this lens with the 17-40mm f/4 and use my feet to fill the gap between 40 and 70mm (I also take along el-cheapo 50mm f/1.8 so I can shoot in low light, and the 1.4x teleconverter to give myself an effective 450mm reach) -- all of this is a good, lightweight, relatively inexpensive package. Also, while being quite a chunk of pocket change, this lens is nowhere near as expensive as the f/2.8 versions, and so it's a lot less of something to worry about when traveling or shooting under adverse conditions.
As so far, I have found NOTHING that I do not like about this lens (well, except for the one-stop loss from f/2.8).
I have to say that if you are looking for a single lens to do General Purpose work, this is not it. This lens is for specfic purposes. This lens works best as one-half of a pair, taking the upper useful focal lengths, while you use something like the 17-40mm f/4L or the 24-70mm f/2.8L to handle lower range of focal lengths. If you're looking for a carry-everywhere never-change lens, try the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. It's a great value, the focal length range is in the sweet spot, and the optics are not bad.
Otherwise, if you fit into one of the three categories at the beginning of this post, I would highly recommend this lens to you.
|
|
|
165 of 172 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
On fantastic lense for sports photography, August 6, 2003
I love this lens! Every year, I shoot a two-day 4-on-4 flag football tournament. With this lens, I consistently capture better photos than the other photographers with longer lenses. At f/4, it's fast enough to give you all the flexability in the world. Since it's a constant aperature throughout the length of the zoom range, your focus remains almost constant, so that you can cheat and get away with changing the zoom after you've got a focus lock.While it's true that this lense will never "grow up to be" the f/2.8 70-200, at half the wieght and half the cost, it's worth it if you're looking at lugging around your camera for hours on end. ...P>One Warning: If you've never shot with a Canon Professional lens ('L' series lenses), you're in for a real treat. You'll have a very difficult time justifying buying anything for your Canon's in the future that's not an 'L' lens, and that can get VERY expensive.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
See all Product Description
