Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)

Started Dec 3, 2012 | Questions
TrevorNews
Regular MemberPosts: 466Gear list
Like?
Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
Dec 3, 2012

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

I don't intend to spend the money on the IS version or the newer version, I would get the MPE-65 for that money.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Trevor

 TrevorNews's gear list:TrevorNews's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
ANSWER:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 7D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
akustykmagmanetpl
Contributing MemberPosts: 597Gear list
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 3, 2012

it isn't that ubersharp as the newer IS version, but it is a decent lens with good colors and fine contrast. good 3rd party tripod collar is inexpensive (roughly 25 USD) so I basically see no reason not to get one, if you're working from the tripod.

I mean... the lens is relatively inexpensive and its quality is more than fine. sure, pick it up and try!

 akustykmagmanetpl's gear list:akustykmagmanetpl's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hank3152
Forum ProPosts: 12,464Gear list
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

A used f/4 non-IS can be a great bargain since it won't depreciate much more if any and you can get every dollar back if/when you decide to sell.......I'd search FM and POTN for others since they seem to have the most reliable sellers.....

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1170978/0?keyword=70-200#11162613

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=-1&f=14

The lens is light enough that it really doesn't need a tripod mount, otherwise Canon would have supplied one like they do on the f/2.8 series and longer primes.....

 Hank3152's gear list:Hank3152's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
selected answer This post was selected as the answer by the original poster.
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
scrane
Contributing MemberPosts: 935
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

I have heard that the 70-200 f4 is not at its best at minimum focus distance. Other than that the non IS version is only slightly less sharp than the IS version.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Limburger
Senior MemberPosts: 3,886Gear list
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

Two shots taken this weekend. Jpeg out of camera (sligtly adjusted). I don't know what the askingprice is but the lens is ok. A joy to use.

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cassatt
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,304Gear list
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

Use mine all the time in the studio. Razor sharp, and a lot lighter than its 2.8 cousin, which I also have.

-- hide signature --
 Jim Cassatt's gear list:Jim Cassatt's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 300D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-E1 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rsn48
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,130
Like?
Flickriver images
In reply to Jim Cassatt, Dec 4, 2012

Check out the images at flickriver of the non-IS version, its a very good lens and a used one is a genuine bargain.

http://www.flickriver.com/search/canon+70+-+200+f4/

-- hide signature --

Hind sight is always better than foresight, except for lost opportunity costs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,228
Like?
You have heard wrong (and are spreading wrong info as a consequence)
In reply to scrane, Dec 4, 2012

scrane wrote:

I have heard that the 70-200 f4 is not at its best at minimum focus distance. Other than that the non IS version is only slightly less sharp than the IS version.

The 70-200mm f4 is SUPER at or past MFD.

The IS version, however, can be VERY problematic at MFD.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,228
Like?
If it is in good condition, YES
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

TrevorNews wrote:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

I don't intend to spend the money on the IS version or the newer version, I would get the MPE-65 for that money.

It is a lovely lens, and well suited for close ups.



Most of these photos are made with a 12mm extension tube attached, brining it to 1mm MFD and 0.29x magnification (from the standard 1.2m and 0.21x). Obviously, with a 25mm ext. tube you will get higher magnifications. All photos handheld.

This lens of course is also nice for non-close up stuff:



Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
meland
Senior MemberPosts: 3,421
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

TrevorNews wrote:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

I don't intend to spend the money on the IS version or the newer version, I would get the MPE-65 for that money.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Trevor

If it's in good condition buy it.  It's a superb lens and I would defy anyone to be able to see any difference between its results and those of the IS version (taking camera shake and regurgitated test reports out of the equation).

One thing you will not have to worry about is possible malfunction of the IS system.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,626
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

TrevorNews wrote:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

I don't intend to spend the money on the IS version or the newer version, I would get the MPE-65 for that money.

Sounds like your main interest is close up/macro work, and I wouldn't recommend it for that. This is not because of any optical issues - it's actually very good with extension tubes when stopped down to f8 or f/11. The problem is that with a full set of Kenko tubes (68 mm) you have a very long and IMHO clumsy setup, the inconvenience of fitting/removing tubes, and only 0.6x magnification. Acceptable, perhaps, if you already have the lens and want to turn your hand to macro occasionally for the price of a set of tubes. But not as a first choice when buying from scratch.

For the same ball park cost you could have a Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, if you can find one. For not a lot more, you could have the OS version.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,228
Like?
Nonsense
In reply to Steve Balcombe, Dec 4, 2012

Steve Balcombe wrote:

TrevorNews wrote:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

I don't intend to spend the money on the IS version or the newer version, I would get the MPE-65 for that money.

Sounds like your main interest is close up/macro work, and I wouldn't recommend it for that. This is not because of any optical issues - it's actually very good with extension tubes when stopped down to f8 or f/11.

It is fine wide open, even.

The problem is that with a full set of Kenko tubes (68 mm) you have a very long and IMHO clumsy setup, the inconvenience of fitting/removing tubes, and only 0.6x magnification.

You do not need a full extension tube set for close ups.

Acceptable, perhaps, if you already have the lens and want to turn your hand to macro occasionally for the price of a set of tubes. But not as a first choice when buying from scratch.

For the same ball park cost you could have a Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, if you can find one. For not a lot more, you could have the OS version.

Macro and close up are not the same thing. I can't make the shots I make with my 70-200mm f4 L USM with a Sigma 150mm f2.8. Both lenses have their own charm and areas to excel in.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ak1999
Contributing MemberPosts: 524
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 4, 2012

Make sure you get one with late lens code, at least UX or newer.

I had 70-200F4 IS and sold it when I switched brand.

I got non-IS 70-200f4 when I switch back to Canon and I actually like its rendition better specially in bokeh area.

The IS version has bit more contrast but you can makie it up in PP.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Limburger
Senior MemberPosts: 3,886Gear list
Like?
Re: Nonsense
In reply to brightcolours, Dec 4, 2012

brightcolours wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

TrevorNews wrote:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

I don't intend to spend the money on the IS version or the newer version, I would get the MPE-65 for that money.

Sounds like your main interest is close up/macro work, and I wouldn't recommend it for that. This is not because of any optical issues - it's actually very good with extension tubes when stopped down to f8 or f/11.

It is fine wide open, even.

The problem is that with a full set of Kenko tubes (68 mm) you have a very long and IMHO clumsy setup, the inconvenience of fitting/removing tubes, and only 0.6x magnification.

You do not need a full extension tube set for close ups.

Acceptable, perhaps, if you already have the lens and want to turn your hand to macro occasionally for the price of a set of tubes. But not as a first choice when buying from scratch.

For the same ball park cost you could have a Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, if you can find one. For not a lot more, you could have the OS version.

Macro and close up are not the same thing. I can't make the shots I make with my 70-200mm f4 L USM with a Sigma 150mm f2.8. Both lenses have their own charm and areas to excel in.

I see this opinion echoed many times on several forums (fora, fory?). For true macro this is not the lens, for close up it works for what I read. Make it focus a little closer and you're set.

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AJohn
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,461
Like?
Well worth it
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 5, 2012

The vast majority of the shots at my site were taken with this lens. I think it's excellent. It's a dream to carry compared to some other options. I had seriously considered selling mine to get the IS version, but after having the IS mechanism replaced twice now on my 17-55, there's no way I'd part with this non IS version.

I sometimes carry a 500d close-up diopter, in case I need to reduce my MFD. It's something that is easy to carry and use in the field. I shot this with the combo.

BTW, I feel that the lens is light enough that you can do without the tripod collar. They are nice to have, but I never needed one with this lens.

-- hide signature --

Andy
FCAS Member #120
www.imageevent.com/ajrphotos

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
scrane
Contributing MemberPosts: 935
Like?
Re: You have heard wrong (and are spreading wrong info as a consequence)
In reply to brightcolours, Dec 5, 2012

brightcolours wrote:

scrane wrote:

I have heard that the 70-200 f4 is not at its best at minimum focus distance. Other than that the non IS version is only slightly less sharp than the IS version.

The 70-200mm f4 is SUPER at or past MFD.

The IS version, however, can be VERY problematic at MFD.

Yes, you're right. Thanks for your correction.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
foggy
Regular MemberPosts: 235Gear list
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 8, 2012

This is a super lens..! Sharp, color, contrast, AF speed very good, light as compared to 2.8 version. Good for macro. I use a Nikon 5T or 6T (or stacked)  2 element diopter filter (no longer made) with 70-200 F4 L non IS on 60D.

All photos shown done with 70-200 F4 L non IS on 60D

Foggy



Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,228
Like?
Nice results!
In reply to foggy, Dec 8, 2012

foggy wrote:

This is a super lens..! Sharp, color, contrast, AF speed very good, light as compared to 2.8 version. Good for macro. I use a Nikon 5T or 6T (or stacked) 2 element diopter filter (no longer made) with 70-200 F4 L non IS on 60D.

All photos shown done with 70-200 F4 L non IS on 60D

Foggy



Nice photos :). Indeed, they show the contrast and colour I am used to with this lens.  Nice to read/see your success with the nikon 5T/6T :)... strange that Nikon discontinued them, seeing how popular the Canon pendants are...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
escrime
New MemberPosts: 1
Like?
Re: If it is in good condition, YES
In reply to brightcolours, Dec 8, 2012

Fabulous photos!

In response to the original question, I have the 70-200 f4 which I bought several years ago and it is brilliant. It was my first L lens (and is the only one at the moment) and I wish I had done so before.

It has two drawbacks:

  1. it is conspicuous
  2. now I have to buy more L lenses which on the whole are way more expensive.

Andrew

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
med007
Senior MemberPosts: 1,608
Like?
Re: Is it worth buying a used 70-200 f4 L (NON IS Edition)
In reply to TrevorNews, Dec 9, 2012

TrevorNews wrote:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Low Light shooting is not of concern to me. I don't use IS either. What are your thoughts about the optical quality of this lens. Share your thoughts and any photos if you like. Thanks.

I have a few photos in my gallery. I use a Flash and will most probably use this lens with a Extn Tube for close-up photography and/or for the standard range the lens offers on a 7D or 5D MK II.

Would you suggest the collar for this lens?

Trevor,

i have the 70-200 4.0L and the 2.8L IS big brother. The f4 lens is every bit as professional a lens as the big brother. The images are sharp,, color is brilliant and contrast wonderful. wide open the bokeh is soft and delightful.

There's really no need to use the IS version I'm many circumstances outside of sports in low light. I find that having a light lens that I can actually carry with me to be a bonus rather than a heavy lens that one want to leave at home!

Get the lens used and you will not regret the purchase. Simply buy from someone locally and test it in there street beforehand or ask for 4-5 days option to return for a refund. Even a 10 year old lens is going to be just fine! I'd look to pay about $400 in the USA.

Asher

-- hide signature --

Creative Intent - Ideas, Process and Journey to the Photographic Masterpiece and Beyond

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads