Ef 70 200mm F 4 Views

General Goods

Unlike its 80-200/2.8 predecessor, all of the Canon 70-200 L lenses are compatible with the Canon 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. The photo at right was taken with the 70-200/2.8L and 1.4X converter (Kodak E100 film, EOS-5 body, ARCA Swiss ballhead on Gitzo carbon fiber tripod). Note that the resulting effective 300mm lens wasn't really long enough for this medium-sized animal, even though his home is the Seattle Zoo. Image quality is quite high though you are definitely going to lose a lot of sharpness with a 2X converter.

I bought this lens in March and have been using it a lot since. It is every bit as good as I had heard. In April, I went to the Texas Hill Country to photograph wildflowers--an annual trek for me. I used the 70-200 with the EF 1.4X Extender for about 75% of my shots. I used a tripod often but, due to the constant Texas wind, I also shot handheld wide open at a high shutter speed. The results were very pleasing. Combined with an extender or the 500D close up lens, it is a great alternative to carrying a macro. Anyone using the Canon EOS system would find this a very useful lens and, although expensive, it is money well spent. Wee Keng_Hor , September 09, 2001; 01:46 A.M.

I have the 70-200/F4. Aside from being much lighter than the other two it is also much cheaper. Phil did not mention cost issues in his comparison. The F4 version costs less than $600 with rebate, the F2.8 is over $1,100, and the 2.8 IS is around $1,800. For the difference in price between the F4 and the 2.8, I could buy a nice portrait lens or even the 100/2.8 macro. For the difference in price between the F4 and the F2.8 IS, I could buy the 300/F4 IS prime. I use the F4 on a D30 body. At 200mm (320 effective) out of focus backgrounds are not a problem. However, in low light AF can be. I currently use a 50/1.4 (80mm on the D30) as a low light portrait lens. When Canon has a full frame digital, I will need that portrait lens. jack's dad , March 09, 2002; 12:47 A.M.

Counterpoint to the comment above: I own the 70-200mm f4 and a 50mm f/1.4, too. I actually find that the 70-200mm f4 focuses much faster on my D30 (due to the ring USM versus the micromoter USM?) than my 50mm 1.4 in low light. It does not hunt the way that the 50mm 1.4 often does in low light, low contrast situations. Are you SURE that your f4 is worse in low light? For those of you worried about the f4F's relatively small aperture and autofocusing problems on the D30, don 't worry. You, too, will be surprised by how quickly it focuses in low light. Stephen Lutz , April 16, 2002; 10:49 A.M.