Steve Strawn
Forum Enthusiast
It is better at f/2.8.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why I don't like the 70-200 f/4L lens
- Thread starter Dick Ginkowski
- Start date
Andrew Grant27981
Senior Member
That is unfortunate. However if you are going to bash what is probably Canons best lens in value for money terms (sharper than many Canon prime lenses and not any more expensive) and suggest the purchase of a Tokina instead, you need to develop a thicker skin.
It does not appear that you have ever used this lens. Your opinions do not appear to be influenced by any actual facts abount the lens other than the fact its widest aperture is f4.
I own this lens, it is the only zoom lens I own and is sharper than most of my prime lenses. The only lens that I have that I am sure is sharper is a 100/2.8 USM macro. I have thought of selling the lens and replacing it with the 2.8 IS model. Handling a camera with 2.8 IS lens mounted changed my mind.
John O77763
Active member
You must be one of the very few people who don't like this lens ( I own it along with other L and none L lenses). Optically its every bit as good as the 2.8L and the build quality is fine, its also nice and light. True its not as fast, but thats the only possible down side I can see.
John O
John O
Dick Ginkowski
Senior Member
Nobody "bashed" this lens. I'm glad you like yours.
You did correctly point out that f/4 is an issue. Here's why. As I mentioned, the 70-210 f/4 is a lot cheaper if money was the issue at hand. I owned it and it was a decent, though not spectucular, lens. The 70-200 f/28L is not only a fine lens, but, as I pointed out, much more versatile. Not only do you get an additional stop of light -- a fairly signficant point by itself -- you also get the opportunity to fully utilize both the 1.4x and 2x converters. Further, you get the ability to shoot at f/2.8 when you want to be more selective in controlling depth of field. The 77mm filter size of the 2.8 means that you can standardize with many other L series lenses (something you can't with the f/4) and Tokina Pro Series Lenses.
So, as you can see, this was not a "bash" of that lens or its optical qualities but rather a commentary on usefulness and versatility, which are also factors to consider.
As I said in another post, I spent many years in the broadcast industry. We used a lot of Sony equipment even though it may not have been the stuff with the most bells and whistles (or even the cheapest). We did because it was built solidly, solidly backed and performed well under a variety of conditions.
You did correctly point out that f/4 is an issue. Here's why. As I mentioned, the 70-210 f/4 is a lot cheaper if money was the issue at hand. I owned it and it was a decent, though not spectucular, lens. The 70-200 f/28L is not only a fine lens, but, as I pointed out, much more versatile. Not only do you get an additional stop of light -- a fairly signficant point by itself -- you also get the opportunity to fully utilize both the 1.4x and 2x converters. Further, you get the ability to shoot at f/2.8 when you want to be more selective in controlling depth of field. The 77mm filter size of the 2.8 means that you can standardize with many other L series lenses (something you can't with the f/4) and Tokina Pro Series Lenses.
So, as you can see, this was not a "bash" of that lens or its optical qualities but rather a commentary on usefulness and versatility, which are also factors to consider.
As I said in another post, I spent many years in the broadcast industry. We used a lot of Sony equipment even though it may not have been the stuff with the most bells and whistles (or even the cheapest). We did because it was built solidly, solidly backed and performed well under a variety of conditions.
Evrim72723
Forum Enthusiast
From what I heard, the Sigma build quality is not up to par with Tokina/Canon. Tokina's are tanks.
The photodo MFT # is one part of the equation. I would raher have a lens that has good contrast/color rendition then a sharper one, though they tend to go together most of the time.
3.9 for sigma is pretty good. But again, build quality is sometimes important, and for me, manual focus mechanism is VERY important. The tokina clutch is awesome idea!
Nevertheless, the Canon 80-200 2.8 is a great buy. Very contrasty and sharp.
You can use the Canon 80-200 with third party teleconverters, some of which are as good as Canon ones.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.evrimgallery.com
Weddings and Dance Photography
The photodo MFT # is one part of the equation. I would raher have a lens that has good contrast/color rendition then a sharper one, though they tend to go together most of the time.
3.9 for sigma is pretty good. But again, build quality is sometimes important, and for me, manual focus mechanism is VERY important. The tokina clutch is awesome idea!
Nevertheless, the Canon 80-200 2.8 is a great buy. Very contrasty and sharp.
You can use the Canon 80-200 with third party teleconverters, some of which are as good as Canon ones.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.evrimgallery.com
Weddings and Dance Photography
Dick Ginkowski
Senior Member
I think Photodo and other comparison sites are worth looking at but they don't necessarily end my consideration (unless a score is so low as to make the purchase suspect). Optical sharpness is important, but only one of many factors. A sharp lens that is poorly built and sitting in the shop isn't much use.
I feel for you, ****.
I recently posted a thread about focal length equivalents in film and digital, and I mistakenly titled the thread, "What's so great about the 70-200?" If you want to read it, it's at:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3178999
Anyhow, the post was basically a comparison between popular lens' effective focal length after the 1.6 crop factor against existing lenses which fit in those focal length ranges. But because many people read the title and not the message, the first few responses were from people who have a personal attachment of some kind to the 70-200 2.8L lens and felt obligated to defend its quality. Which, of course, was not what my post was about, HAD THEY READ THE MESSAGE.
So, in light of that, I would suggest that in the future, if people post without reading your message first (especially if they get unreasonably emotional/defensive/offensive) I'd suggest just ignoring their posts altogether and wait for a more intelligent response.
Talk about trigger-happy... fingers flying like a bat out of hell, eyes and minds crawling like thick molasses on a cold winter day.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
I recently posted a thread about focal length equivalents in film and digital, and I mistakenly titled the thread, "What's so great about the 70-200?" If you want to read it, it's at:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3178999
Anyhow, the post was basically a comparison between popular lens' effective focal length after the 1.6 crop factor against existing lenses which fit in those focal length ranges. But because many people read the title and not the message, the first few responses were from people who have a personal attachment of some kind to the 70-200 2.8L lens and felt obligated to defend its quality. Which, of course, was not what my post was about, HAD THEY READ THE MESSAGE.
So, in light of that, I would suggest that in the future, if people post without reading your message first (especially if they get unreasonably emotional/defensive/offensive) I'd suggest just ignoring their posts altogether and wait for a more intelligent response.
Talk about trigger-happy... fingers flying like a bat out of hell, eyes and minds crawling like thick molasses on a cold winter day.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
Of course, you must also take into account that photodo tests ONE sample of the lens. If they got a bad Tokina lens, then that's it - the Tokina is rated badly. If they received the same 16-35L that DavidP received from Delta Int. that had the really weird/bad flare, guess what? The 16-35L would get a bad rating. Of course, the 16-35L will most likely never show up, because that site hasn't been updated in ages.
When you do actually take into account more than one sample, then you'll start to get a more accurate picture of the quality of the lens. And as **** and many others are pointing out, optical quality isn't the only issue concerned.
Take, for example, http://www.photographyreview.com . Users who have voted rated these lenses:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS - 13 review - 5/5
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L - 68 reviews - 4.79/5
Canon 70-200 f/4L - 54 reviews - 4.96/5
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - 10 reviews - 4.6/5
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM - 76 reviews - 4.62/5
Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 - 11 reviews - 4.73/5
Okay, so all these lenses got pretty high reviews. Granted, these numbers are not scientifically measured numbers as the MTF numbers are. Then again, these numbers reflect the feedback of real world users based on the lens as a whole, not just optical quality. And the best part? It's based on more than ONE SAMPLE.
And then there's this lens performance survey I found, once again based on user feedback:
http://www.cmpsolv.com/cgi-bin/output2.cgi?Manu=2.+Canon+EOS+compatible&Type=3.+Tele+Zooms+xx-200mm&Aperture=2.+f%2F2.8&Sort=1.+overall+Performance&x=75&y=14
Looking at this, we have the following ratings:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS - 12 review - 4.84/5
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L - 116 reviews - 4.76/5
Canon 70-200 f/4L - 34 reviews - 4.71/5
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM - 68 reviews - 4.36/5
Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 - 41 reviews - 4.28/5
Again, this shows that the Canons rate better than the Sigma and Tokina, but also show that the Sigma and Tokina still rate fairly well.
And of course, once you factor in value (bang for the buck) you're likely to see slightly different numbers.
Me? I owned the Canon f/4 at one time. I was still learning, so I didn't do too much with the lens. I either returned it or sold it, I can't remember. I just remember that indoors, when it got just a little darker, the f/4 became quite limiting.
I also owned the Sigma f/2.8 at one time. I sold it because I wanted to play around with other lenses, and couldn't afford just buying another lens. Most likely, I will want a lens in this range again. Will it be the Tokina or the Sigma? I don't know. I like that the Sigma's hood can be reverse mounted. I like that the Tokina allows you to rotate the polarizer without having to take off the hood. I like the Sigma because I've owned it and I've seen the results. I like the Tokina because it's (supposedly) built like a tank, and I've yet to own one. New toys are fun.
Do I heed the photodo MTF number? Sure. Will I let that be the deciding factor in which lens I buy? Of course not.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
BillCat
Leading Member
I'm suspecting that the Sigma has better image quality than the Tokina, and that the Canons are the best. It's good that the Tokina is made well, how about the Sigma, isn't it ok?
The subjective ratings tell you something about the lenses, but I think that Photodo's MTF rating is more accurate for image quality judgement. The second consumer survey you list seems to correlate satisfaction directly with price.
You have owned the Canon f/4 and the Sigma, how did you feel about the image quality between the two?
Most likely I'll just pick up a good condition Canon 80-200 later.
Bill
The subjective ratings tell you something about the lenses, but I think that Photodo's MTF rating is more accurate for image quality judgement. The second consumer survey you list seems to correlate satisfaction directly with price.
You have owned the Canon f/4 and the Sigma, how did you feel about the image quality between the two?
Most likely I'll just pick up a good condition Canon 80-200 later.
Bill
Andrew Grant27981
Senior Member
So it costs less money but the image quality is not as goodas the 70-200/4 which is excellent. Given that the 70-200/4 L only costs around $550, why settle for an inferior lens.
Both teleconverters work fine with the F4 lens. You can't AF with the 2x on the D30 or D60 of course. Then again, many people think 2x teleconvertors degrade the image too much.
DOF at F4 on a long lens is already quite shallow.
If one were just buying 2.8 L zooms. I don't have two lenses with the same filter size but I do have a Cokin filter holder.
The 2.8 is more veratile of course but at twice the cost and weight with no advantage in image quality. The IS vesion is more versatile than the non IS 2.8 gving a couple extra stops when handholding. It also has seals on the lens mount. I am not sure why anyone would get the non-IS version, if cost is an issue the F4 version is much cheaper.
Not sure how the above supports your arguements.
Zero
Leading Member
Wait a second here. I've read most of the posts on this thread, and I really don't get the feeling that anyone was bashing the poster. Yes, people had different opinions but that is to be expected. It seems you are still sore from your post or you like to wallow in self-pity. I see no connection between your post and this one.
Zero my hero
--
Zero my hero
That's true... if you can manage to get your hands on the particular lens that photodo used to test.
I really liked the Sigma's image quality - though I had no direct comparison between the Sigma and the Canon f/4, since it was about a year between the period when I owned either lens. I think the Canon's image quality is superb, probably better than the Sigma. But then again, I think the original point of ****'s post was that while the lens has great optics, there are other things to consider, too.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
Actually, I was really very hurt when people didn't read my message and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and I've been suffering emotionally. It took a long time for me to get over it and finally be able to come back to the forum, but now this... I don't know.
Let's try this message:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3327278
Was **** knocking the Canon f/4? No. He was saying that he wouldn't recommend it himself, based on the criteria he feels is important. But he never said the lens was a bad lens. But the poster who replied to his post jumped to the conclusion that he was knocking the lens, probably based on the message title, "Why I don't like the 70-200 f/4L lens."
Or this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3337458
Again, I really don't think that **** is bashing the f/4 lens at all. And if this person had read his post a little more carefully, he would have seen that.
That's why I asked, "Why don't people read?", because there are people who don't. Yes, there are plenty of others who do take the time to read the entire message and respond in a more mature manner, while others get emotionally defensive.
But in case you were wondering, I wasn't sore from my post - rather, I was amused that some folks can write lengthy (and trite) responses to threads without really knowing what they're responding to. I saw behavior in this thread which reminded me of the behavior seen on that thread and felt it was appropriate to point it out. I'm sorry if in doing so I have offended you, though I don't recall ever saying that you don't read the posts.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
Zero
Leading Member
Guess I was grumpy after a long day.
Zero my hero
--Actually, I was really very hurt when people didn't read my message
and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and I've been suffering
emotionally. It took a long time for me to get over it and finally
be able to come back to the forum, but now this... I don't know.
Let's try this message:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3327278
Was **** knocking the Canon f/4? No. He was saying that he
wouldn't recommend it himself, based on the criteria he feels is
important. But he never said the lens was a bad lens. But the
poster who replied to his post jumped to the conclusion that he was
knocking the lens, probably based on the message title, "Why I
don't like the 70-200 f/4L lens."
Or this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3337458
Again, I really don't think that **** is bashing the f/4 lens at
all. And if this person had read his post a little more carefully,
he would have seen that.
That's why I asked, "Why don't people read?", because there are
people who don't. Yes, there are plenty of others who do take the
time to read the entire message and respond in a more mature
manner, while others get emotionally defensive.
But in case you were wondering, I wasn't sore from my post -
rather, I was amused that some folks can write lengthy (and trite)
responses to threads without really knowing what they're responding
to. I saw behavior in this thread which reminded me of the
behavior seen on that thread and felt it was appropriate to point
it out. I'm sorry if in doing so I have offended you, though I
don't recall ever saying that you don't read the posts.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
Zero my hero
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum