Having fun with a new 70-200L f4 IS

[Cem_Usakligil]

I have owned a 70-200L f4 IS and also an f2.8 version in the past. In the past year and a half, I have been shooting with primes only: the longest of which being a 100mm. However, my previous 70-200L IS lens has been an excellent and versatile companion for shooting cityscapes. So I gave into temptation and bought one again this week. Firstly, I have done some extensive testing using Bart's resolution target. After the testing, the first sample I bought has gone back to the vendor since it had some aberration in one of the corners. The second one was very well behaved and tack sharp, so I have decided to keep it. This evening, I went out to shoot some pictures to test the lens in the field. Here are a few pictures from this very first round of shooting.

PS: I have posted some cow pictures I took with the lens in a separate tread here.

​

 

[Paul Abbott]

A very nice set of images you have here, Cem. The first one is a real nice shot.
Personally, I hate to buy a zoom lens, nearly every one i've ever had has had some sort of focusing problem. I tend never to use them anymore...in fact I rely on shoe-leather zooming for what I photograph...

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

A very nice set of images you have here, Cem. The first one is a real nice shot.
Personally, I hate to buy a zoom lens, nearly every one i've ever had has had some sort of focusing problem. I tend never to use them anymore...in fact I rely on shoe-leather zooming for what I photograph...

Thanks Paul. I am no stranger to zooming with my feet, I do it all the time. But under certain circumstances this does not work well. I missed not having the reach of a 200mm and I did not want to have to change lenses when I am doing street photography. Also, the IS means that I can shoot indoors more easily whereas I had to push the ISO to 1600-3200 with my 100mm lens when shooting in churches, museums and the like.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

So Cem, are all of these handheld, or did you use a tripod for the later ones? They look very sharp even on the monitor (though I'm shure you have the abiity to give that impression with any lens in your stable).

All good pictures in their way. I like number one just for the observation (I posted a simiarly themed shot with my 70-200 a year or two back), but number 3 is excellent. 4 also has a sense of mystery in it's darker demeanour.

You do realise that you should be using a prime lens with (35mm film frame effective) focal length of 50mm or less for street photography? Anything else is just wrong

Mike

 

[Ruben Alfu]

Serious fun!

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Mike,

So Cem, are all of these handheld, or did you use a tripod for the later ones? They look very sharp even on the monitor (though I'm shure you have the abiity to give that impression with any lens in your stable).

All good pictures in their way. I like number one just for the observation (I posted a simiarly themed shot with my 70-200 a year or two back), but number 3 is excellent. 4 also has a sense of mystery in it's darker demeanour.

You do realise that you should be using a prime lens with (35mm film frame effective) focal length of 50mm or less for street photography? Anything else is just wrong

Mike

Your are spot on. I took the last two using a tripod indeed.

Re. the prime lens <= 50mm for street photography, I actually use the TSE 24mm most of the time. How about that for being conventional?

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Serious fun!

Yes, it really is ))

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Cem,

We've had an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM for quite a while (we call it the "milk bottle"). But its size and weight have led us to use it only rarely.

We have recently concluded that the f/4 version would better suit us, and so today we have put into play a "swap" in that regard. I sold the f/2.8 and ordered a used f/4 from KEH Camera.

I had looked into getting a factory refurbished one from Canon directly, but it would have cost me about $150.00 more ($90 of which would have been from the fact that I would have been forced to pay state sales tax on the purchase from Canon).

One thing I look forward to is the supposedly superior IS system of the f/4.

We're looking forward to our new, smaller and lighter "milk bottle". I'll put up some shots as soon as I can.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi DOug,

Hi, Cem,

We've had an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM for quite a while (we call it the "milk bottle"). But its size and weight have led us to use it only rarely.

We have recently concluded that the f/4 version would better suit us, and so today we have put into play a "swap" in that regard. I sold the f/2.8 and ordered a used f/4 from KEH Camera.

I had looked into getting a factory refurbished one from Canon directly, but it would have cost me about $150.00 more ($90 of which would have been from the fact that I would have been forced to pay state sales tax on the purchase from Canon).

One thing I look forward to is the supposedly superior IS system of the f/4.

We're looking forward to our new, smaller and lighter "milk bottle". I'll put up some shots as soon as I can.

Best regards,

Doug

Good luck with your swap. I am sure that you will enjoy the f4 lens. It is much lighter and of manageable size. IS would perhaps be 1/2 to 1 stops better than the f2.8 IS. It all depends on your own shooting style. I have done some tests with mine and I get 2 to 4 stops in real use.