I am considering buying the 70-200 f/4L zoom. Does it provide similar image quality as the 70-200 2.8L lens? I was not impressed by Popular photographys analysis of the f/4 lens.

-- Leonard (col@cujo2.icom.ca), April 12, 2001

Answers

Hi Leonard,

I purchased the 70-200mm f/2.8L today and used it for the first time. It is very heavy (first thing I noticed) but the speed is really awesome! I used Kodak Pro 160VC film today with motorcycle riders and by next week, I'll have the results. As of now, I am very satisfied so far with the lens and if anything doesn't turn out, I can almost guarantee it's either me or the processing, not the lens at fault.

Contact me directly if you'd like to know how my photos turned out. I can't vouch for the f/4L. Think about whether or not you will need the extra speed of the 2.8L before you decide. Good luck!

-- S Butler (sbutler2@ameritech.net), April 13, 2001.

Leonard,

It has to do with sample variations. Each magazine tests only one lens. If you look at Photodo you will find a test that shows it to be an excellent lens. Dr. Stewart Bell of AP magazine says it is the best lens of it's type he has tested in 20 years.

Whatever lens you buy you should immediately test it. If it doesn't meet your expectations take it back.

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), April 16, 2001.

don't pay too much regard to pop photo's lens testing. they also said that the 28-135 IS is the best performing Canon zoom starting at 28mm. They tested the 28-70L a few years back. Do you think the 28- 135 is better? No. Pop photo also says that you can put 2x converters on Tamron 28-300 zooms and get good results. Do you believe that? No.

Lets see, the Canon 70-200 f4 has 2 UD elements and a calcium flourite element. Do you really think that crappy sigma 70-300 across the page from the canon in the review is better than the canon? Pop photo seems to say so.

Anyways, I own the 70-200 f4 and like it alot. Nice and lightweight with good mechanical construction (metal) and good optical qualities. I've never used the canon 70-200 2.8 but I own the 85 1.8 and 100 macro and the zoom provides similar quality--as long as you can live with the slower aperture. I used a friends 70-200 HSM sigma and I like my 70-200 f4 better--plus its 200 bucks cheaper than the sigma. As long as you can live with the f4 aperture, buy it. You can always pick up the 85 1.8 and have a more versatile portrait/low light kit for cheaper than the canon 70-200 2.8.

-- josh (josh@neb.rr.com), April 24, 2001.

From a test result posted on the internet, I can observe that the 70- 200f/4L is superior at the 70mm f/4 setting when compared with the 70- 200f/2.8L. However, at all other focal lengths such as 105, 135 and 200, the f/2.8L looks sharper.

-- Anthony Wong (anthwo@hotmail.com), May 03, 2001.

Hello to all, Further to my last contribution on this subject, I have indeed found the web page posting of the image comparison test between the 70- 200/2.8L and the 70-200/4L. The differences are quite stunning. I hope that this link works. Please e-mail your comments to me, if you have any.

http://www.xitek.net.cn/bingqiku/canon/lenstest/f4comp.htm

-- Anthony Wong (anthwo@hotmail.com), June 21, 2001.