> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:46:57 -0700 > From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: EOS 70-200f4 quality > > does anyone here have direct experience with the Canon EF 70-200 f4 L > USM? How does it compare to the f2.8 version, and to the old 70-210 f4 > non "L" non USM? I'm considering getting this lens for my wife, who has > developed an overriding emphasis on sharpness. Is it worth the roughly > (new) $600 price of entry? > Skip > - -- > Shadowcatcher Imagery > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com You've asked a good question and I'll try to answer it. I've owned both these lenses - the EF70-200 f/4 and f/2.8L USM. Allow me to share my honest opinions formed through the years that I've used both these lenses. Note that these are just my personal views and may not reflect popular sentiment. Since this review turned out so long, I had to separate it into Part 1,2 & 3 in order for it to be accepted onto this list. Sorry for the inconvenience. (Part 1) Construction and Handling Both these white lenses bear the glamourous "L" badge, boast a metal construction, utilise exotic glasses and are quite solidly made. The layout of the newer f/4L zoom shows that it is an adaptation of the proven optical formula of the f/2.8L version. Since the 2.8L zoom has the ability to capture twice the volume of luminous energy compared to its smaller sibling, it's not surprising that it also weighs nearly double and costs twice as much! Both lenses are almost similar in length, but the 2.8L has a larger diameter and uses 77mm filters compared to 67mm for the f/4 version.The manual focusing rings for both lenses are located a little too far forward for convenient manual focusing, but you won't need it much as the USM driven AF rarely flounders. The f/2.8L sports a tripod collar, which makes a world of difference when switching between horizontal and vertical compositions on a tripod. Sadly, the f/4 version does not come with a tripod collar as standard issue. This ridiculously priced accessory has to be purchased separately and I'd strongly recommend getting it (Canon Tripod Mount Ring A - C547022)should you choose to buy this lens. Both come with lens hoods - the 2.8L has a flower-petal hood while the f/4 has a cylindrical shaped hood - both are equally effective, although the flower petal type certainly looks more elegant. The enses are two touch zooms with ultrasonic motor driven internal rear focusing systems. Hence the lenses' front barrels do not rotate while focusing nor do the lenses extend physically when zooming. This make them relatively impervious to dust compared to "dirt sucking" zooms which physically extend or rotate. Both lenses exhibit very fast and silky smooth AF performance when used the Eos 1V or Eos 3. If you must know, the f/4 version acquires focus a fraction faster in bright conditions since it has a shorter focusing throw from minimum distance (1.2m) to infinity. The 2.8L has heavier lens elements to move and the focus throw is considerably longer. However it has an edge in AF performance when shooting under poor light conditions. The larger aperture allows the cross sensors of pro Eos bodies to kick in and in low light, you'll be able to latch on focus faster and more decisively with the f/2.8L than with the f/4L. The f/4L fights back by sporting a shorter minimum focusing distance of 1.2m compared to 1.5m with the f/2.8L. Let me add that the new EF100 f/2.8 USM macro focuses even faster than both L zooms at normal camera-to-subject distances. Amazing! The macro lens literally jumps into focus while the L zooms "glide" into focus. Despite these differences, trust me, these ultrasonic pro zooms are plenty fast enough for any assingment when coupled with the latest high end Eos bodies. Both zooms will stand up to the rigours of daily professional use (but not abuse). Avoid dropping either lens at all costs! The lenses are heavy and their metal barrels often buckle upon impact. During my years as a journalist, I have seen several units of the 2.8L version take direct impact as it inevitably happens when photographers jostle for position to capture the "decisive moment". I have also seen the f/4L sustaining impact damage upon just being tilted over and falling on its side. If you inspect both lenses closely, you'll see the lens barrel divided into two sections - the zooming and focusing sections. Usually upon impact, the top part (focusing barrel)will land first and may be knocked out of alignment with the bottom (zooming) barrel. In some cases, users may not immediately notice any apparent damage to the lens. However, they may soon notice an increased stiffness when turning the manual focusing ring or zoom ring. With continued use, the two sections may actually loosen and you may even notice some play or wobble between the two barrel sections. I have experienced and seen this happen numerous times and a fellow photojournalist had her lens literally grind to stop as she continued using it after a bad fall. Should you ever drop these lenses and notice a tightening in the focusing or zooming actions - send it in for servicing immediately. On the bright side, with proper care, both lenses will serve you well for years. ___________________________________________________________________________ Please refer to Part 2 of this review. Warm regards, Jonathan Kwok * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
