Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM any opinions?

[Ruggerbugger]

I'm in the market for a mid focal length zoom, and have come across this lens for £500 from Park Cameras. It seems to tick all my boxes, particularly as I was wondering if I could afford an L lens. The biggest downside I can see is the lack of IS (this will go on a 450D).

Any opinions? Alternatives for a similar budget?


[edit] This review really talks this lens up, and the pictures from it look great. I was particularly pleased with the comparison with the f2.8 IS lens, which I can't afford anyway.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[Blastuk]

there are no comparisons for the IQ that lens gives in that price range.. I'm gonna get that lens eventually

If you don't need to use it for indoors shooting or low light then it's pretty much a perfect lens.. also lightweight compared to the other flavours.

you could always stick it on a monopod or something if you're worried about shake..

[Saracen]

It's an extremely good lens, and about the only one I'd prefer (personally) at that sort of focal length would be the much more expensive IS version. Be aware, though, that the IS version is a much newer lens and a significant redesign. It isn't just the same lens with IS bolted on. Optically, the IS version is phenomenal, and the standard one is just absolutely excellent.

I've used one, and the results were great. A friend bought one (not the one I used) and is delighted.

If that's the focal range you're after, then personally, the only issue would be whether I could double the budget and afford the IS version .... and if it was enough of an improvement to justify it.

[Ruggerbugger]

Thanks guys, that seems to have nailed it for me. I really can't afford the IS version, so it looks like this is the one for me

[edit] Ordered and on its' way

[Bobster]

get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 instead

[edit] DOH too late!

[Whiternoise]

I was going to ask, what's the optical difference betwen the 2.8 and this one?

Surely you'd go for the 2.8 because it's going to be pretty sharp (i'd have thought) at f/4 anyway - plus you've got that added speed if you do anything indoors.

[Saracen]

I was going to ask, what's the optical difference betwen the 2.8 and this one?

Surely you'd go for the 2.8 because it's going to be pretty sharp (i'd have thought) at f/4 anyway - plus you've got that added speed if you do anything indoors.

Well, if you're talking about the Canon 2.8, it's double the price, so unless you are really going to be using the 2.8, then I wouldn't. And, by the way, it's also about double the weight.

Same applies to the Sigma, though the price difference isn't as big it's still dearer. Personally, I'd go for the Canon, and it'd be either the IS or non-IS f4, depending on what the budget permitted, because I think the occasions when I'd want the faster performance will be few and far between and I'd rather not have the extra weight. If some kind soul offered to buy me one and offered me the Canon f4 or the Sigma 2.8, I'd say thanks, and go for the Canon. But each to his own.