Reading mode: Light Dark

Why I don't like the 70-200 f/4L lens

Go to last post
D

Dick Ginkowski

Veteran Member
Messages
2,013
Solutions
1
Reaction score
260
Location
US
Well, I don't hate the 70-200mm f/4L lens, but it is something that I am reluctant to recommend.

For many years Canon had in its ED (manual focus) lens stable a 70-210 f/4 zoom. It was pretty good. I still have one. When I went to the EOS like years ago I got it's EF cousin which is no longer made today but KEH has a used one in excellent condition for $115. I sold that lens long ago when i got my 70-200mm f/2.8L which I consider one of the best and most versatile lenses Canon makes.

Now the 70-200 f/4 L lens sells for $580, much more than it's non-L counterpart. It is tripod mounted.

If money is an issue, for about $20 more you can get the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro and get an extra stop of light or you can find one of the old 70-200mm f/4 Canon zooms for a lot less.

Nope, nothing is inherently wrong with the 70-200 f/4L lens, but it seems to me that you can get more bang for the buck with other lenses.

Just my two cents on this one.
 
Yo DG (welcome back from Alaska);

Thanks for the heads-up.

I realize that each lens (even of the same make and model) are somewhat different, do you have any pix of the comparison between the Tokina and Cannon models??

Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.

Janksta
**** Ginkowski said:
If money is an issue, for about $20 more you can get the Tokina
80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro and get an extra stop of light or you can find
one of the old 70-200mm f/4 Canon zooms for a lot less.

Nope, nothing is inherently wrong with the 70-200 f/4L lens, but it
seems to me that you can get more bang for the buck with other
lenses.

Just my two cents on this one.
Click to expand...
 
this about sums of the flaws of the lens. No hidden gotchas with the lens, other than maybe the cost of a white tripod mount. :) It does what it says, and produces good images doing so. One of the least complained about lenses around.

I had this lens, but sold it for the extra reach and IS of the 100-400.

Jason
**** Ginkowski said:
Well, I don't hate the 70-200mm f/4L lens, but it is something
that I am reluctant to recommend.

For many years Canon had in its ED (manual focus) lens stable a
70-210 f/4 zoom. It was pretty good. I still have one. When I
went to the EOS like years ago I got it's EF cousin which is no
longer made today but KEH has a used one in excellent condition for
$115. I sold that lens long ago when i got my 70-200mm f/2.8L
which I consider one of the best and most versatile lenses Canon
makes.

Now the 70-200 f/4 L lens sells for $580, much more than it's non-L
counterpart. It is tripod mounted.

If money is an issue, for about $20 more you can get the Tokina
80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro and get an extra stop of light or you can find
one of the old 70-200mm f/4 Canon zooms for a lot less.

Nope, nothing is inherently wrong with the 70-200 f/4L lens, but it
seems to me that you can get more bang for the buck with other
lenses.

Just my two cents on this one.
Click to expand...
 
**** Ginkowski said:
Now the 70-200 f/4 L lens sells for $580, much more than it's non-L
counterpart. It is tripod mounted.

If money is an issue, for about $20 more you can get the Tokina
80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro and get an extra stop of light or you can find
one of the old 70-200mm f/4 Canon zooms for a lot less.

Nope, nothing is inherently wrong with the 70-200 f/4L lens, but it
seems to me that you can get more bang for the buck with other
lenses.
Click to expand...
There's also the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as a viable alternative. You can get it for less than $600 (if you shop right you'll get it for less than the Canon f/4 version). I'm not sure how it compares to the Tokina since I haven't used the Tokina, but when I had the Sigma I liked it. (Yes I sold it, I just like to play around with different lenses once in a while... I'll most likely buy the Sigma again.)

--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
 
KEF calls that 70-210 f/4 lens a Macro, I'm wondering if it's really a macro lens. I'm wondering if it's this lens on Photodo: Grade: 2.8 35mm/AF Canon EF 70-210/4 The optical quality doesn't sound too good.

Bill
 
BillCat said:
KEF calls that 70-210 f/4 lens a Macro, I'm wondering if it's
really a macro lens. I'm wondering if it's this lens on Photodo:
Grade: 2.8 35mm/AF Canon EF 70-210/4 The optical quality doesn't
sound too good.

Bill
Click to expand...
Not a real macro. Optical quality is average - nothing spectacular.
 
and that's not such a bad thing. I can well appreciate the extraordinary value of the 17mm, 20-35mm, 28-70ATX Pro and 80-200 lenses. It seems Canon has some real competition finally huh?
**** Ginkowski said:
Well, I don't hate the 70-200mm f/4L lens, but it is something
that I am reluctant to recommend.

For many years Canon had in its ED (manual focus) lens stable a
70-210 f/4 zoom. It was pretty good. I still have one. When I
went to the EOS like years ago I got it's EF cousin which is no
longer made today but KEH has a used one in excellent condition for
$115. I sold that lens long ago when i got my 70-200mm f/2.8L
which I consider one of the best and most versatile lenses Canon
makes.

Now the 70-200 f/4 L lens sells for $580, much more than it's non-L
counterpart. It is tripod mounted.

If money is an issue, for about $20 more you can get the Tokina
80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro and get an extra stop of light or you can find
one of the old 70-200mm f/4 Canon zooms for a lot less.

Nope, nothing is inherently wrong with the 70-200 f/4L lens, but it
seems to me that you can get more bang for the buck with other
lenses.

Just my two cents on this one.
Click to expand...
 
Amazing that for no real reason you decide to knock what is possibly Canon's best zoom lens. Period.

John

P.S. - If you have a 70-200L you do not care for, I know a few people interested. I'm sure you will price it low as you think the lens is not worth much.
**** Ginkowski said:
Well, I don't hate the 70-200mm f/4L lens, but it is something
that I am reluctant to recommend.

For many years Canon had in its ED (manual focus) lens stable a
70-210 f/4 zoom. It was pretty good. I still have one. When I
went to the EOS like years ago I got it's EF cousin which is no
longer made today but KEH has a used one in excellent condition for
$115. I sold that lens long ago when i got my 70-200mm f/2.8L
which I consider one of the best and most versatile lenses Canon
makes.

Now the 70-200 f/4 L lens sells for $580, much more than it's non-L
counterpart. It is tripod mounted.

If money is an issue, for about $20 more you can get the Tokina
80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro and get an extra stop of light or you can find
one of the old 70-200mm f/4 Canon zooms for a lot less.

Nope, nothing is inherently wrong with the 70-200 f/4L lens, but it
seems to me that you can get more bang for the buck with other
lenses.

Just my two cents on this one.
Click to expand...
 
John Davis said:
Amazing that for no real reason you decide to knock what is
possibly Canon's best zoom lens. Period.

John

P.S. - If you have a 70-200L you do not care for, I know a few
people interested. I'm sure you will price it low as you think the
lens is not worth much.
Click to expand...
John, as I stated, my 70-200mm f/2.8L is probably one of the finest lenses Canon ever made in terms of quality and versatility. Unless I decide to buy the IS incarnation, which is not likely soon, you'd have to steal it from me as it's not for sale!

The 70-200mm f/4L is not the same lens as the f/2.8...not even a "stripped down version" but a separate creature. As I stated, for roughly the same money you can get a good f/2.8 Tokina 80-200 ATX Pro built like a tank and sharp. That extra stop of light can come in very handy. So, if money is an issue, there are better alternatives.
 
...if Tokina came up with a knockoff of the ultrasonic motor!

The Tokina ATX Pro lenses are viable price point conscious competitors. I will agree that there may be a couple of Sigma lenses that are possibly sharper but that is easily outwighed by Tokina's superior build quality in the Pro line.
 
**** Ginkowski said:
John Davis said:
Amazing that for no real reason you decide to knock what is
possibly Canon's best zoom lens. Period.

John

P.S. - If you have a 70-200L you do not care for, I know a few
people interested. I'm sure you will price it low as you think the
lens is not worth much.
Click to expand...
John, as I stated, my 70-200mm f/2.8L is probably one of the finest
lenses Canon ever made in terms of quality and versatility. Unless
I decide to buy the IS incarnation, which is not likely soon, you'd
have to steal it from me as it's not for sale!

The 70-200mm f/4L is not the same lens as the f/2.8...not even a
"stripped down version" but a separate creature. As I stated, for
roughly the same money you can get a good f/2.8 Tokina 80-200 ATX
Pro built like a tank and sharp. That extra stop of light can come
in very handy. So, if money is an issue, there are better
alternatives.
Click to expand...
****:

I do not want to enter into a controversy with you. But you are dead wrong. From an optical perspective, the 70-200/4L is one of the best pieces of glass Canon makes, and NO, the 2.8 version is NOT (repeat NOT) better. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am stating a fact. You may prefer a faster lens, and I understand that, but that is a whole different conversation. The only reason I entered into this thread was to respond to the absolutely gratuitous statement you made.

John
 
...but I am also entitled to mine and I will defend our rights to freedom of expression.

That having been said, at no point did I attack or put you down in any manner. The same cannot be said for you:
John Davis said:
John Davis said:
John Davis said:
Amazing that for no real reason you decide to knock what is
possibly Canon's best zoom lens. Period.

John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
f
John Davis said:
****:

I do not want to enter into a controversy with you. But you are
dead wrong. From an optical perspective, the 70-200/4L is one of
the best pieces of glass Canon makes, and NO, the 2.8 version is
NOT (repeat NOT) better. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am
stating a fact. You may prefer a faster lens, and I understand
that, but that is a whole different conversation. The only reason I
entered into this thread was to respond to the absolutely
gratuitous statement you made.

John
Click to expand...
I guess from reading the above that whatever John states is fact and what others experience and believe is merely opinion.

I respectfully disagree.
 
John Davis said:
I do not want to enter into a controversy with you. But you are
dead wrong. From an optical perspective, the 70-200/4L is one of
the best pieces of glass Canon makes, and NO, the 2.8 version is
NOT (repeat NOT) better. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am
stating a fact.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute... if I must have 2.8, is the 2.8 version not better than the f4 version? Whether the 2.8 version is better than the f4 version, I think that's an opinion, based on different users' criteria.

So John, next time you state an opinion (I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong), be sure not to confuse it with fact. :)

--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
 
John Davis said:
****:

I do not want to enter into a controversy with you. But you are
dead wrong. From an optical perspective, the 70-200/4L is one of
the best pieces of glass Canon makes, and NO, the 2.8 version is
NOT (repeat NOT) better. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am
stating a fact. You may prefer a faster lens, and I understand
that, but that is a whole different conversation. The only reason I
entered into this thread was to respond to the absolutely
gratuitous statement you made.

John
Click to expand...
I don't mean to get anyone upset, but while the f/4 is one of the best zooms Canon makes, is it really fair to call it one of the best pieces of glass Canon makes? For sure the best deal in an L lens, but there are probably 10 or 15 prime lenses that can take it on image quality in various forms (sharpness, contrast, flare, bokeh, etc..)

It's weird how people feel so strongly about this lens and also the Simga 70-200f/2.8.
 
My statement of fact pertains to the lens' optical performance. Just visit the EF Lens site and compare the MTF curves of the 4 and the 2.8. If you know how to read MTF charts you understand ;-) - and that's a fact!

Everyone is entitled to her opinion. Of course, you may need the wider aperture, but you also have to acknowledge carrying a much heavier/bulkier lens. Those are tradeoffs and one can opine that one set of features serves one better than the other. The point of my replies is that **** implied, summarily, that the 4 is no good - and yes he is entitled to his opinio. However, I stand my ground - FROM AN OPTICAL PERSPECTIVE is better than the 2.8. That is a fact, period.

John
JCW said:
John Davis said:
I do not want to enter into a controversy with you. But you are
dead wrong. From an optical perspective, the 70-200/4L is one of
the best pieces of glass Canon makes, and NO, the 2.8 version is
NOT (repeat NOT) better. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am
stating a fact.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute... if I must have 2.8, is the 2.8 version not
better than the f4 version? Whether the 2.8 version is better than
the f4 version, I think that's an opinion, based on different
users' criteria.

So John, next time you state an opinion (I'm not saying whether
it's right or wrong), be sure not to confuse it with fact. :)

--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top