Price per performance L Lens


Status
Not open for further replies.

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#4
stjhie said:
What you guyz think of Canon 70-200mm f/4L lens? Is it worth it?
Yes. To a certain extent it is worth the money. But decide first what you intend to shoot with this lens and clarify what range you'll really need. Not sure what camera you've got. But on something like a 350D and a 30D, you'll get an equivalent of 112-320mm with your lens...quite a lot of reach.

Assuming the range is right for you there may be a temptation to upgrade to a f/2.8 version (IS or non-IS) down the track. But if you primarily take photographs outdoors, the f/4 version is a mighty fine lens. Extremely sharp throughout the range even wide open, with great colour rendition. Not to mention that it's light and easy to carry around all day (and I mean it).

In the past I used to have this lens but upgraded to something with a longer range because it didn't give me enough reach to get the shots I wanted at the zoo. Of course, it is long enough for full-body shots, but if you're looking to get tight head shots of even the large cats, you might be looking for something like a 300mm and beyond on a 1.6X FOV crop body.

Have a think over it. But for raw value-for-money, the 70-200mm f/4L is very good indeed.
 

#5
Ok, thanks fword. Any ideas on the Canon 70-300 IS (non DO and DO) ones? They are significantly smaller but I'm wishing for a "L" lens and a grey pro looking lens :) Are they sharp too as they have such a long range.
 

imouyang

New Member
Oct 17, 2004
598
0
0
30
Hougang
#6
stjhie said:
Ok, thanks fword. Any ideas on the Canon 70-300 IS (non DO and DO) ones? They are significantly smaller but I'm wishing for a "L" lens and a grey pro looking lens :) Are they sharp too as they have such a long range.
Definitely get a L... The 70-200 L has better image quality and faster AF(important for capturing things fast)... Of cos, the cons is $$$;)
 

m-zai

New Member
Nov 30, 2005
60
0
0
#7
yup...definitely a great quality lens to have...:thumbsup:

then again...whether it is worth it or not really depends on your shooting interest and how you actually use it :)
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#11
_espn_ said:
70-300 IS cannot make it, get 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.
To a certain extent this is true. The 70-300mm IS has the latest generation IS and also offers greater range than the 70-200mm f/4L. There are some reports of the lens producing soft images when the camera is used in the vertical format but Canon has supposedly caught onto the issue and will recallibrate these lenses at no cost.

I haven't used the 70-300mm IS but suspect the image quality wouldn't be as good as the f/4L. Again it really depends on your application and how picky you are with IQ. The 70-300mm DO is certainly very attractive because it is small and compact. But after seeing several threads on this it appears that the performance is substandard and you should probably avoid that lens.

The choice now would be between the 70-300mm IS and the 70-200mm f/4L, assuming your budget limits you as such or if your application depicts that these are what you really need. I urge you to consider what you really want to use the lens for and decide also what range you'll need.

Bear in mind also that there's a rumour of an EF-S 16-200mm on the horizon, so you may want to hang back and watch for it if you're using a compatible camera.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#13
i dun think performance is something so easily to quantify.

if you need it, mean you need it

other than performance, i also look at its durability, resale value, compatibility with future bodies...etc
 

sk.images

New Member
Dec 9, 2005
1,244
0
0
www.pbase.com
#14
There is not a linear relationship between cost and quality. For marginal increases in quality, usually in colour and contrast, you will pay significantly more. You can't say "it cost 2x, therefore I want 2x the quality" it just doesn't work that way.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#15
cyber_m0nkey said:
There is not a linear relationship between cost and quality. For marginal increases in quality, usually in colour and contrast, you will pay significantly more. You can't say "it cost 2x, therefore I want 2x the quality" it just doesn't work that way.
yah..sometimes the "performance" may be indirectly porportional to the price too

50mm f1.8 - $100+ :D
50mm f1.4 - $500+ :sweat:
50mm f1.0 - $5000+ :faint:

performance wise, the f1.0 is not sharp and the AF is slowest of all compare to f1.8 and f1.4

similarly, the f1.4 also not very much sharper and faster than f1.8

but i still love my f1.4 cos i can get something more useful at the price of f1.0 :bsmilie:
 

hazmee

Senior Member
May 9, 2004
2,942
1
38
37
Sengkang
noorhazmee.com
#17
The 70-200 F4L for outdoor events, street shoots, portraits and landscapes is more than enough for the average user. If you're not making money out of photography, I think its good bargain to get the F4 one. I am loving mine to bits. You can see some samples here:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=209939
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom