canon 70-200 f4L USM Lens

[KISS_ME]

Anyone able to give me a recommendation on this lens? Im planning to head out to Korea for vacation in the coming months and want to bring with me a lens that gives me more zoom then my 17-85 kit lens. So far from what i read this is the best bang for buck wise in a zoom lens giving both great zoom and optical clarity. My other choice was the 55-250 but from what i read in previous posts its not a great choice.

Also the 70-200 does not come with IS - will this be a problem of any sorts?? the 70-200 w/ IS becomes stupid expensive. Futureshop has this lens listed @ $699 but i'll probably pick it up from camera shop as i like their service better.

Lastly any other lens i should be looking at if this one isn't a good choice.

Thanks in advance.

edit: is this lens carry-able for long trips and is it a PITA cause of its size/weight?

[Go4Long]

at that price point there's nothing that'll touch that lens. Great lens. Get it.

[AccentAE86]

excellent lens. Good for use in good light. Indoors in the evening/night will need flash. But then again, the 55-250 is also good in good light; it just needs to be stopped down a bit.

For vacations, I take my $100 75-300 lens and keep my 70-200L at home. This cheap lens does an absolutely fine job for me for vacation snaps. But honestly, on vacation I use my telephoto the LEAST by far. Most shots are taken with my 10-22.

[Mitsu3000gt]

The 70-200/4 is great glass for the money if you don't need IS. Not having IS being a problem is dependent on your shooting style. If you are in situations where you can always use faster shutter speeds and you have steady hands or shoot from a tripod, it is a non issue. You could use a flash too. IMO image stabilization of some sort is extremely useful on the 70-200 range, and every manufacturer offers it as an option.

I personally think charging $600 more on a $700 lens for IS is a joke, but you have no choice if you want that lens with IS. For $200 more than the 70-200/4 IS you can buy the 70-200/2.8 non IS and gain the 2.8 aperture. You would be looking at a bigger/heavier lens then, of course, defeating the purpose of the f4 lineup.

The 55-250 is an average lens. It's light but it's slow and IQ is average. It is also strangely expensive relative to the competition for what you get.

I'd maybe look for a used 70-200/4 IS if I were you as it sounds like you are on a bit of a budget and that way you can get what you really want. Most people keep their expensive lenses in top notch condition.

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS might be worth looking into as well.

As for prices, TCS will match Future Shop's price so I would buy it there for sure.

Regarding traveling with a heavy lens, that is completely up to you. I am perfectly happy traveling with a 40lb camera bag, some people would definitely not be. A 17-55 + 70-200/4 wouldn't make for a very heavy kit IMO. As long as you have a good bag that you find comfortable I doubt it will bother you too much. I would recommend a sling or backpack style bag with quick access to your gear.

[Clever]

I can't comment on the 70-200 F4L, but I use the 55-250 and I think it is a decent zoom lens for the the money I paid for it, I am not a pro and I only use my camera for shooting family and landscapes on trips. My advice is google for sample pics of the lens you are interested in, that gave me a better idea about previous and future lens purchases.

[KISS_ME]

Originally posted by AccentAE86
excellent lens. Good for use in good light. Indoors in the evening/night will need flash. But then again, the 55-250 is also good in good light; it just needs to be stopped down a bit.

For vacations, I take my $100 75-300 lens and keep my 70-200L at home. This cheap lens does an absolutely fine job for me for vacation snaps. But honestly, on vacation I use my telephoto the LEAST by far. Most shots are taken with my 10-22.

u think i should just pick up a cheapy telephoto lens then and spend the difference on say maybe a 50mm 1.4?

[lint]

If you're shooting wild life or creeping the ladies while on holiday, bring a telephoto. Otherwise wider is almost always better when travelling

[HiSpec]

If only Nikon makes 70-200 in f4...

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by KISS_ME


u think i should just pick up a cheapy telephoto lens then and spend the difference on say maybe a 50mm 1.4?

Well, only you can answer that. It depends on what you like to shoot. I know myself, I don't need telephoto lenses on vacation. But that may differ for you. 85mm is pretty telephoto on a crop camera, so your 17-85 will still give you decent reach.

I'd personally rather get an ultrawide or a fast prime than a telephoto. Actually I haven't even taken my telephoto on my last couple of trips. When I went to Korea, I used my telephoto ONCE to take a picture of a goat. What a waste of space. But I used my ultrawide 90% of the time as it is such a crowded place.

Something like a Sigma 10-20 from B&H which is cheaper than buying locally.

[Melinda]

I'm sort of the opposite of Lloyd (accent). When I travel I tend to use my 70-200 a lot. When we were in london and scotland it was super useful to get castles and details from far away, especially since we did a lot of sightseeing in London from the open air top of a double decker bus.

However, I use my wide angle a LOT as well, so both are pretty useful lenses for a trip. It really depends on what you're looking for when shooting on your trip.

As for weight, the f4 is WAYYYYYY lighter and smaller than the f2.8. You'll enjoy carrying that one around more than a 2.8 for sure.

[Mitsu3000gt]

^^^ Same here, when I travel my 70-200 is glued to my camera. It's unquestionably my favorite lens range. It all depends on what you want to take pictures of or where you can take pictures from though, as you say.

[Hash_man]

I had a 70-200F4L a few years ago.

I only had it for about 6 months, and really only put serious use into it on vacation. It was an excellent lens although I personally could use IS, the lens produced excellent image quality, sharpness and such was awesome. I also thought the size was just fine. With the hood and such on it is a bit large, but is a great size for travelling.

[soupey]

...i traded my 70-200f2.8 IS down to a 135L+cash....it's a lot of money to keep in one lens unless you use it a lot, the weight and my own personal preference of wanting to use faster prime glass is what made me consider the move.

as several people have said here, i find that tele is least used on vacation to URBAN areas, if you're going anywhere that has things to see in the distance (outdoors, or far away castles), invest in a zoom lens. if you need super quality, go for the f4L, if not, go for a cheaper option. remember these L lenses do not lose much value (if any) if you buy used and sell used once ur done with it...

[quazimoto]

Actually they do lose value when they come out with Mark II lenses, etc but even then the loss isn't significant. In the case of the F4 it's a nice lens and I think it's great just because the size.

That being said I think F4 lenses are going to be more popular moving forward as both Nikon and Canon continue to push higher and higher clean ISO technology. The only way I'll shoot at 2.8 now is if I want to and not because I have to. Having clean ISO 6400 the need for fast F2.8 lenses is no longer really there.

[KISS_ME]

picking up the lens this weekend.

if anyone cares futureshop is having 10% off lens this weekend. makes this lens work out to $630 if my math is right.

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-ca/cas-august.aspx?CMP=NLC-ALL-100813

[blitz]

They're having 10% off "selected lenses"

Doesn't seem clear what qualifies and what doesn't.

[clem24]

Here's what I find... Unless you need big apertures, a super zoom (i.e. 18-200) is the way to go. Something like the Canon 18-200 has IS, and one full stop slower at full tele than the 70-200 f/4. The trade off is lower IQ, but HUGE gains in that you can just leave the lens on all the time. And you're out taking pics of stuff like castles and what not in daylight, you'll be hard pressed to see much difference between the f/4 lens and the 18-200 stopped down.

On my last trip to Hawaii, I opted to bring my multi lens setup (11-16, 17-50, 85) instead of my usual trip gear (11-16, 18-200). What I found was that a.) like Accent, I hardly used the 85, but b.) I found that when I did want tele, the 85 was insufficient. Cause when I wanted tele, I *really* want tele. The extra reach that the 85 offered over the 17-50 was just not quite enough. I ended up with lots of cropped pics.

So for me, and my recommendation for you, again, as others pointed out, depending on your needs, I'd get an ultrawide + a super zoom for trips. But then again, depends on your budget too. My 18-200 sits idle for 350 days of the year. That's a lot of $$$ tied up in a lens that only does travel duty. And no matter how light the 70-200 f/4 + 17-85 combo is, it'll still be heavy compared to a plastic super zoom. And that gets really tiring to carry around. And especially so for me (kids) cause with kids, it's just a PITA to be switching lenses back and forth.

My 2 cents...

[KISS_ME]

just picked up the lens at best buy. they priced match the sale i linked above and got it for $617. I asked camera shop and they weren't able to price match it as its a special promotion. sounds like a lot of people have this lens but if anyone wants a picture of it just let me know. the quality of the build is just plain awesome. way better then the 55-250 but then again i payed almost twice as much. anyhow, thanks so much for the help guys. heading out to the zoo this weekend to take some pictures.

i already give it a name - "da bazoooka"

[yobi5888]

Which Best Buy did you go to, do they still have more in stock?

Tempted to go pick one up.

Thanks

[SilverGS]

The F4 is a great lens. I also have the non IS version and as long as you have time to setup and or have very sturdy hands I did find the IS would have been useful.

Yeah it sucks that the IS is so much more but I am contemplaying upgrading either to the 2.8IS or getting the 4.0 IS. Either way great lens for that price.

[soupey]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Actually they do lose value when they come out with Mark II lenses, etc but even then the loss isn't significant. In the case of the F4 it's a nice lens and I think it's great just because the size.

That being said I think F4 lenses are going to be more popular moving forward as both Nikon and Canon continue to push higher and higher clean ISO technology. The only way I'll shoot at 2.8 now is if I want to and not because I have to. Having clean ISO 6400 the need for fast F2.8 lenses is no longer really there.

Actually,

I purchased my 70-200 F2.8L IS in flawless condition before the mark 2 came out, kept it in flawless condition and then traded it for a 135L+cash for it and only lost out about $50...just need to be patient and snipe out good sales that show up online. So no, you really do not lose much value on it, and if you do, it's still not a massive loss, consider it a rental fee if anything.

The mark 2 lens for the f2.8 L version is a significantly higher priced lens, there's still a market for the mark 1 version considering the price gap, that's why it hasnt fallen too much in value...and if you're like and got a decent deal before the mark 2 came out, you'll come out pretty square selling it after too...i dont believe canon is planning on releasing a mark 2 for any other versions of the lens yet anyways, if anything it'd be an upgraded IS system on the f/4IS