Anyone use the Canon 70-200 f/4 USM

[jrm27]

I'm thinking this will be my next lens... I'd love the 2.8 IS, but budget dictates that isn't a possibility. I'm looking for used ones to maximize my dollar.

Anyways, anyone use this lens? Any input?

 

[mlemonds]

I'm thinking this will be my next lens... I'd love the 2.8 IS, but budget dictates that isn't a possibility. I'm looking for used ones to maximize my dollar.

Anyways, anyone use this lens? Any input?

love it. was my first L lens.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

I got a (refurbished) one a few months ago and I've got nothing but praise for it. USM focusing is lightning fast and super quiet, and if you're outdoors, wide-open and ISO 200 will give you fantastic shutter speeds for capturing action while having a little subject isolation. The image is razor sharp wide open (although I'm sure the f/4 IS is even more so) and I haven't seen any CA in my occasional pixel peeping. The size, if you're used to consumer lenses, is a bit unwieldy and unbalanced on a Rebel body. Lack of IS is notable, but you can bump the IS or get good at handholding, I suppose. I've handheld at 1/60, 200mm with some success, but it takes practice.

It may be Canon's cheapest L lens but it sure doesn't skimp in IQ and awesomeness!

 

[Kronie]

I've had both and currently have the IS version. Both are excellent lenses. The IS version is slightly sharper.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I don't have that lens, but it's a more than an excellent choice, specially since it costs around $600.00:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142739

 

[pick]

I have used the 70-200 f4 and found it a great lens, but i bought myself the 2.8 non is, as i needed the speed for sports shots.If you don't need the speed get the f4, plus it is a lot lighter than the f2.8.

 

[OreoCookie]

You might also want to look into similar lenses by third-party manufacturers. Personally, I would find 50-135/150 mm much more useful (I own a 80-200 mm zoom).

If you really want 70-200 mm, have a look at Tamron and Sigma. Their lenses cost about the same as the Canon ($679 for the Tamron vs. $600 for the Canon at bhphoto). They're faster (initial aperture 2.8 instead of 4 which does make a big difference), but also heavier (as all zooms of this class with 2.8 aperture; this also makes a big difference).

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Out of these, if my budget was tight, I would choose the f/4L USM in a heartbeat. it's an incredibly fast-focusing and sharp lens.
70-200mm f4 non IS (USM)
70-200mm f4 IS
70-200mm f2.8 non IS
70-200mm f2.8 IS

 

[wheezy]

Rarely will you go wrong with an L... if it's even possible. A bonus the F4 iterations are going to have is slightly sharper edges, just cause they're a smaller lens to work with. (or so I hear..) All of them are going to be sharp, all of them will have fantastic contrast and really pull the colors through. Don't think you're getting jipped cause it's 'just' an F4, having it be constant from 70-200 is nice as most consumer grades are hitting 5.6 on the long end which is too slow.

I'd look into investing in the battery grip for your body as well, as mentioned it's a long big lens and having that extra support for your pinky etc to keep the lens forward is nice.