Just bought Canon 70-200 F/4L lens... good idea?

Well, today is my birthday (yay) and I got a little spending money from family.

I decided to add in a little more money of my own and buy a Canon lens I've been hankering for.

I bought the 70-200 F/4L lens. My plans for use are

1) General shooting, parties, stuff I am selling on eBay, etc
2) Products for our website (where I have complete control over lighting and I use a tripod)
3) For going to the F1 race in Monza next month

Now, I would have loved to have gotten the F2.8 IS but I kept justifying the F2.8 (non-IS) by saying "well, it's only $400 more". Then I'd say "Hell, the 2.8IS is only another $600 more, may as well" and all of a sudden, I am looking at spending almost $1800! So I'd just go back to the F4.

I feel the F4 will be decent for outdoor in full daylight. I am also sure it will be OK for the rest of my shooting since most of it is product shots. I wanted a super tack-sharp lens for product photos... I have been hankering for the 135mm F2 L lens, but it's almost $1k and it's a prime, so while it's fast and sharp, I lose the zoom, so it would be sub-optimal for taking to the race track. I've read the F4 is a very sharp lens, some say sharper than the 70-200 2.8 or 2.8IS model.

So does anyone have this lens? What would you say about it? If money was no object, I'd get the 135mm F2, as well as about 10 others, but I'd be spending probably $40k on lenses A guy's gotta start somewhere! I switched from Nikon to Canon a few years back when I bought my 20D, and the only lens I have right now is the 85mm F1.8 and the junk EF-S that came with it.

So, opinions on the 70-200 F4 L lens?

I am also not sure if it makes sense to get a monopod for bringing to the F1 race? Or should I bring my tripod? Or perhaps just hand hold? Never been to Monza, so I dont know what shooting opportunities are like.

 

I tried the f4 IS and the 2.8 IS before my trip to Germany. I am not sure if the lens you bought has the IS but after shooting 3 F1 races at Indy, I think that the IS is the way to go for panning along with the cars. I did not see a big enough difference between the lenses to justify the price increase. I was in the process of paying for the f4 IS when my wife saw the price and had a total meltdown, I looked at and ended up buying the F4-5.6 70-300 IS lens. It worked great as a walking around lens, it was much lighter than the 70-200 and it was only $500. If you want the Prime lens, you made a good choice. My race pics are here if you wnat to see them, they were all taken using film, no tripod or monopod. have a great trip

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pac1185/

 

Happy birthday

The 70-200 f4 L lens is a great piece. I have had mine for ~2 years now and have taken thousands of shots with it, very much worth the price. If I were buying again I would get the f2.8 IS or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS L but both or those are considerably larger and more expensive. Mostly use it for outdoor shots with good lighting, haven't used it very much inside.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Great pics Mark, and thanks for your service!


Paul, I didn't get the IS lens... I figured that if I was going to spring for the IS, I may as well get the 2.8 instead of the F4... and if I am already dropping $1100, may as well toss in $600 more and get the 2.8 IS.

I am sure I will get the 2.8 IS some day... the L lenses seem to hold their value very well, so I can enjoy the F4 for now, let the "CFO" forget about what I spent on it, and then maybe next year sell it and add in another grand and get the 2.8IS while still flying under the CFO's radar, if you know what I mean

I was hoping that in full summertime daylight, with the F4 lens, I could get shutter speeds of 1/1000 or 1/3000 which should be enough to freeze even F1 motion, especially if I am panning. I am pretty good at panning a shot, and I sort of like and even prefer if the backdrop and wheels are slightly out of focus, but the car is sharply focused.

I'll have time to play with the lens before I go, so if it doesn't work out I can always return it in favor of the 2.8 IS!

And thanks for the b-day wishes!

 

Never tell your CFO what a lens costs. Never take her to a camera shop. It will cost you shoes, or vacations, or something. I bought the 70-200 2.8 VR and had only had a camera for a year. I'm still an amatuer, but that lens boosts the learning curve. I also have a 17-55 2.8, but every time I put it on I miss a shot that the tele could have got.

 

I think this is going to be my next lens, do you love it ?

 

I did not tell her, she walked by as the guy was ringing it up. It will be my next lens as well, I just need to use the slush fund.

 

I own one as well and it's AWESOME. I hardly ever take it off of my camera unless I need to get wide-angle stuff. I'm looking to add the 24-70 2.8 to my collection. Just gotta man up and drop the $.

 

I have only owned a camera for 2 years now. I got both those 2.8 lens a year ago. I've never taken a class. I have no friends with cameras to discuss technique with. I only share my photos here, so I have had no feedback or discussions online. I've only read one of the many books I've bought. I stumble through PS Elements 6. I may try to work in a class at the University this winter but the quality of some of my photos is due to these lens. It's like cars, you can buy horsepower.

I also have a 50mm 1.4 and a 1.4 converter I am playing with.

 

the 70-200 VR looks to be a large lens .... not for everyday ??
i also need to man up and get either the d200 or the d300 soon.
I have many friends and family lined up for holiday portraits this year, a compliment i guess

 

As with many things, you get what you pay for and most modern camera/lens systems are much more capable than the average photographer (sort of like our cars ). Both Nikon and Canon (I'm "stuck" with Nikon just because I have a ridiculous number of lenses and it's too much work and expense to switch back and forth, so I don't know the Canon line as well) generally produce a range of entry-level to very good lenses and the pricing is usually proportional to the quality. IS and F2.8 are nice features *if you know you need them*. If you never use them then they just raise the cost and weight of the package. Further even the cheapest modern lens will more than likely be able to produce tack sharp photos if you shoot at f8 to f11, on a tripod, at ISO100 and don't blow up past 8x10. In general, I would recommend taking the lens and working with it and if and when you look at your shots and are able to say "I wish that the lens were ...." and know what specific characteristic you are looking for, then you'll know why you should spend the extra $ and on what feature(s).

 

It's big but not as much as some. It's easy enough for me to bring along flying as I can drop it in my helmet bag, it might not be the thing to carry around on the streets some places. Occasionally I think about getting a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 diffractive optic lens which is very compact, an SLR always stands out a bit but the big white lenses make them really stand out.

 

I agree with Mark (nice name, btw!). The 70-200 is large and gets a little heavy carrying it around, but the image quality makes it worth the hassle. I wouldn't bring it to a party though unless you want to stick out like a sore thumb. I also have a D300 and it's amazing. Coupled with the 70-200, I feel unstoppable.

And Michael - I took a few photo classes through my city and it was a great experience. Super cheap, and I learned a lot. If you want help or someone to critique your photos, feel free to PM me.

 

Thanks Mark. I'm thinking about that D300. From 30 ft. away here's what you can do with the 70-200.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I hope she never finds this thread. We all have to remember that we are leaving trails of admissible evidence!

Oh, happy birthday as well!

 

The extra speed is worth the price, IMO. There are certain situations where that extra stop will come handy. I have the 80-200 f2.8 (Nikon) and it's a super sharp lens. Regarding the monopod vs the tripod, get a monopod, especially for shooting races.

 

I want to get the 70-200F4L sometime soon also.

I would LOVE to have the 2.8, but it's just so freaking expensive