Canon 70-200 f4L USM Lens [Archive]

bayhli

November 5th, 2006, 10:44 PM

Nancy,

I purchased this lens a couple of months ago, although I have not had much practice with it.

It is amazingly light and I'm managing to use it hand-held without blurring my pictures. (I was leaning toward the IS as well). Haven't used a tripod with it as yet. I'm quite small physically and finding it great. The L glass is nice - very sharp images.

I just tried out a new Kenko 1.4X teleconverter with it today and it works like a charm to increase the reach of the lens. I found I always wanted to get closer. You do lose a stop of light with the converter.

I'm still at the low end of the DSLR learning curve but if you know your way around photography I already think this is a super lens. Obviously the 2.8L would be better for light but overkill in price for an amateur like myself.

It's a very popular lens, just make sure it fits what you want to do with it.

NMarti

November 5th, 2006, 10:53 PM

Robyn
I guess I didn't see that thread or don't remember it. I wouldn't hesitate a minute if I had the cash in hand. :D

Pat
That's what I'm afraid of - the distance. I have a fairly inexpensive 70-300 and I even want to get closer that the 300 allows. I'm just afraid I would not be happy with the distance. I really do want the L series lens quality though.

bayhli

November 5th, 2006, 11:07 PM

Nancy, I'd really recommend that you spend some time at this Canon forum site:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

They have a section on lenses with so much information and links. It really helped me but I spent a lot of time there before making any kind of decision. Lots of people making the same decision(s) and it really helps to follow their thought processes and the advice they get. And you get good answers to your questions. It's a tough decision! I still think about the 2.8L and the longer lenses for sure.

I've been thinking about the 70-300 myself. I got the converter to hold me until spring but I know I'm going to want a larger zoom eventually as I want to do wildlife and birds next summer. What do you think of this lens?

Now that I've experienced the L - it's going to be hard to settle for less. Except that I really don't deserve an L at this point cause manually I haven't yet put it all together.

NMarti

November 5th, 2006, 11:35 PM

Pat
The one I have is really not very good, no IS, nothing special. I think it costs around $288 dollars and the pictures are okay but nothing the write home about.

From everything I've read about the 70-300 f4.5 DO IS USM lens it is nearly as sharp as the "L" series lenses at a much lower price. The pictures are supposed to be excellent (course that's not saying mine would be) and the size and black color are so much more friendly than the bigger, heavier, white L series.

Robyn

November 5th, 2006, 11:47 PM

Nancy........

This thread (http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14305) may or may not be of help to you. These were just the two lens that I was/am considering.

DMurray407

November 6th, 2006, 04:46 AM

I have the 70-200 f/4 lens, too. I really like it-it takes nice sharp photos and it isn't too heavy. I like to take photos of birds and plants outside and end up using it in dense shade quite a bit. If I had an unlimited camera budget, I would go with the faster version because I really have to crank up the ISO to get faster shutter speeds in the deeper shade areas. The faster lenses are so expensive, though-I don't think I'll have one for a very long time unless I win the lottery!. All my lenses so far (I guess I only have 4) have been Canon, but I've been toying with the idea of the "Bigma"-a Sigma lens 50-500mm (If I remember correctly) that I've read some pretty good reviews about. I've read that it's quite a monster, though, but it would be faster than my 70-200 with a teleconverter for those extra zoom pictures. (If I use a teleconverter with my f/4 lens, it loses a couple of stops-not so good in the shady areas, but it still works great in the open)
OK, that's probably more than you really wnated to know! If you get the lens, you will definitely enjoy using it!

NMarti

November 6th, 2006, 09:38 AM

Thanks Robyn. After you mentioned it I went and checked and actually replied in it. :rolleyes: I'm still torn between the same two lenses and I almost bought the 70-300 IS lens before but didn't for some reason.

I really want the "L" series quality glass but I need the IS too. Several reviews have said the 70-300 is "the hidden L series" but others say it's not that close so I guess I'll just have to take the plunge with one and see. I think I'm going to a camera shop this weekend and take my camera and a memory card, try them on and shoot a few pictures and see what I think.

Soileauj

November 6th, 2006, 10:50 AM

This is one of my previous post. The picutres were taken on full auto cloudy day, with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens.

I am attaching 2 pictures downloaded directly from the camera with no photo touchups. The squirrel picture was outside at about 4:30 in the afternoon, very cloudy and about 35-40 yards from my deck. The other picture was taken inside with no flash..I am totally impressed and I compared the picture of my dog to my taken with my Olympus and there is no comparison. I set the ISO to 400 for both.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/12Jv5dySI6VnCzEpWoVKvUKvYXHmgH_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=12Jv5dySI6VnCzEpWoVKvUKvYXHmgH)

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/12fRZcyHP5LByZysHaUkIx03MB9ni1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=12fRZcyHP5LByZysHaUkIx03MB9ni1)

The pups name is Sesi..the squirrel--just a visitor[/QUOTE]

NMarti

November 6th, 2006, 06:57 PM

Joe
Those are very nice! Do you shoot much at 300mm? Just curious if it is always sharp.

Robyn

November 6th, 2006, 07:08 PM

I really want the "L" series quality glass but I need the IS too. Several reviews have said the 70-300 is "the hidden L series" but others say it's not that close so I guess I'll just have to take the plunge with one and see. I think I'm going to a camera shop this weekend and take my camera and a memory card, try them on and shoot a few pictures and see what I think.

Nancy.........I'll be really interested to hear on what you think after this weekend.

Robyn

November 6th, 2006, 07:18 PM

Which one of these are we talking about here? The DO (Diffractive Optics) is nearly double the price of the other one!

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens

NMarti

November 6th, 2006, 07:23 PM

Robyn
I'm looking at the DO one. It's the one that's supposed to be on par with the "L" series lens.

Robyn

November 6th, 2006, 07:29 PM

If price means anything I reckon it would be. It is almost $2000 Aust dollars!! I don't think I could justify spending that much at this stage.

bayhli

November 6th, 2006, 08:21 PM

Nancy,

Here's an article that troubled me when I looked at the DO - granted, this lens has a good following. The other thing to keep in mind is that these may be professionals and not ever be noticed by us non-pro's.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224053

I also read a review that described the 70-300IS as the hidden L-lens.

Robyn

November 6th, 2006, 08:43 PM

Pat........

Interesting article. Of course opinions are always just that!

I thought that this bit was interesting..

If you do not need FAST USM focus like an L lens, but just need IS and compactness, save money and get the consumer Canon 70-300 mm IS. The 70-300 DO IS focus is faster, with FT-M, and superior ruggedness than the consumer 70-300 IS Canon with its micro-USM. The image quality of the consumer lens is good.

I guess it comes down to just what you are buying a new lens for.

NMarti

November 6th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Holy crap - that sounds like too much work to use a lens. :eek: Great article and I know, I know - these are subjective but that lens did scare me a little anyway. I can't remember which one but one of the two was on the market - then off - then back on again. I remember now that's why I didn't buy it - because when I tried it was no longer in stock anywhere but I don't remember if it was the DO or the non-DO one. This is too much work - I need my P&S with 12x zoom back.:rolleyes:

bayhli

November 6th, 2006, 09:35 PM

Nancy,

That's funny Nancy... my thoughts exactly! Lately I find myself just grabbing my little Canon G5 P&S cause it's faster and easier!

Robyn said it correctly - all depends on what we're wanting to do with the lens.

I wonder if you are thinking of the 75-300mm - there were three versions apparently and none are very good. I did think the newer 70-300IS is supposed to be very good, but that can depend on the review you happen upon.

I wish they'd come out with a light 70-300L 2.8 IS USM - I'd stop right there! I'd be out of money after that anyway! :)

LeeOtsubo

November 6th, 2006, 10:01 PM

for a measly US$2100 and it only weighs 3.7 lbs compared to 1.56 lbs for the 70-200/4L or 1.6 lbs for the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS.

The 70-200/4L is one of Canon's best values. It is an extremely sharp lens and one of my favorites. In fact, I generally use this lens instead of my 70-200/2.8 because it's much lighter and easier to carry for hours at a time.

I've also owned the 70-300DO and it's a fun lens but not for everyone. It will magnify every little deficiency in your technique. I've shot photos that were accepted at major photo contests and I've shot others that were so bad that I use them as good examples of bad examples. It's a finicky lens and can be frustrating.

The current version of the 70-300/4-5.6 IS is thought to be a good lens but I've never used it. It has both Mode 1 and Mode 2 IS so panning is enhanced. The biggest knock against this lens is the micromotor USM which is an older technology. It's not very fast, smooth, accurate or quiet but it works. Micromotor also means the lens lacks FTM (full time manual) which may or may not be important to some people.

The older 75-300 is a fine doorstop. As my mother said, "If I don't have anything nice to say...".

bayhli

November 6th, 2006, 10:46 PM

LeeOtsubo

November 6th, 2006, 11:06 PM

Think back to when you first learned to drive. Did you ever concentrate so much on the road that you forgot about the gas and brake pedals? It's the same with cameras. You have to think about the relationship between ISO, aperture and shutter speed. I developed a model I call the Exposure Triad. If any part of the Triad changes, the other 2 parts also have to change to keep the center area (which represents the amount of light) the same. Beyond that, you have to practice until it becomes second nature.

For digital SLR owners, the most useful class is Digital SLR for New dSLR Owners. If you want to sit in on a Webcast demo this Wed at 6PM Pacific Time, PM me with your email address.

NMarti

November 6th, 2006, 11:15 PM

Lee
Since my pocket change doesn't quite up to that many pennies I'll have to settle for something in the $600 range. :D

Thanks for your thoughts. I have that old 75-300 and it is worthy of a doorstop and not much more. I haven't even used it since I got my 28-135 IS lens. I really like that one and it is a good carry around size. I'm looking though for a telephoto and don't want to have to change lenses if a great shot pops up in front of me and that's why I'm looking at a zoom lens for the flexibility.

bayhli

November 6th, 2006, 11:31 PM

Thanks Lee - I'd be interested in taking a look. I'll check out the time difference and pm you.

Soileauj

November 7th, 2006, 01:42 PM

Nancy I do usually use tele lens even with my film camera. AS I jsut got this camera a couple of weeks ago, everything I've shot with it has been sharp provided I had everything set right.. I have signed up for Lee's class "Digital SLR New User".

I mostly use my cameras for vacations but now that my wife has bought this one, it's in my best interest to take many pictures and not leave it in the closet...

NMarti

November 7th, 2006, 02:34 PM

Joe
I agree - it probably is in your best interest if it was a gift from your wife.:D :D

peaches

November 9th, 2006, 12:46 PM

Here is a great site for reviews and comments on cameras and lens. I use it all the time mostly to droll but have bought 2 lenses on their recommendation. and love them
http://www.fredmiranda.com/
sue

johnfranklin

November 9th, 2006, 03:34 PM

Thanks for jumping in with some clarity Lee....

I have the 70-200/F4L - just don't how to use it properly yet!

I've been pondering your classes as well.... I think I understand aperture, IDO, shutter speed etc, at least at the basic level. What I am experiencing is putting this all together when I want to take an photo - doesn't flow you know? Which of your workshops would you think would help - I need something as frustration is setting in.

Thanks again...
This thread originally started about about the Canon 70-200mm F4 usm. So I'd like to address this post first to it specifically. Canon makes really good lenses. I stated the obvious. The reason for the dramatic cost increase for the 70-200L is it has a lot more optical glass in it and a lot more exotic glass to boot. But, the reason for this is so that the lens will be tack sharp wide open at f 2.8 ! Any lens stopped down somewhat is sharper and f 4 lenses are easier to engineer. Normally, in daylight, you would stop the 2.8 lens down anyway. The extra speed of the 2.8 lens comes into play in theater and indoor sports applications where you can't use flash, IE an ice show. With both lenses at maximum aperture, the 2.8 is twice as fast or 1 full shutter speed quicker than the f 4. So,double the ISO speed of the camera and again they are equal. However there is a limit to speed you can develop with camera "film speed" settings, due to the fact that high ISO settings on a digital camera tend to be noisier, just as fast films are much grainier. In my personal work I like to use "Aperture Priority" automatic exposure, this controls the depth of field, (selective focus if you will) and lets the shutter speed fall where it must.
If you use shutter priority automation, and set too small of an aperture number, say f 11, the shutter speed can drop to where you get blurry pictures or even underexposure. This is where "point and shoots" fail, many have a small fixed aperture(high f number say f 9). Or, if a zoom, they start too small and get worse, the film can't be made fast enough to offset this, and you get wonderful memories but, really lousy pictures. Consider this also, the size of the digital sensor affects magnification, and a 200mm lens can be up to 300mm (film equivalent) cropping.(with digital SLR bodies) The wider maximum aperture lenses have better light gathering ability, so that focus acquisition tends to be better.< (just thought I'd throw that one in there).

LeeOtsubo

November 9th, 2006, 04:33 PM

...If you use shutter priority automation, and set too small of an aperture number, say f 11, the shutter speed can drop to where you get blurry pictures or even underexposure.

In Shutter Priority, the user sets the shutter speed so it can't drop to a slower speed (or rise to a higher speed). I believe you meant the aperture can reach it's maximum resulting in underexposed images because there's still not enough light.

...Consider this also, the size of the digital sensor affects magnification, and a 200mm lens can be up to 300mm (film equivalent) cropping.(with digital SLR bodies)

The correct terminology is there but the presentation is a bit confusing. The smaller sensors in digital cameras result in a cropped image. But, there is no optical magnification. Therefore, a 100mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor Canon body will still be twice the size of a 50mm lens but since only the center ~40% is captured, when prints are "normalized" at, say, 4"x6", the digital image appears larger than the full frame image.

Sorry to be picky but I didn't want someone to misinterpret an otherwise good explanation.

bayhli

November 9th, 2006, 04:46 PM

Thank you very much for the additional information JohnFranklin! :)

Now I understand why the 2.8 is always recommended for sports.

When I purchased this 70-200 F4L (used from Ebay), in my heart of hearts what I really wanted was the 2.8L IS . Really only to make it as easy as I could for myself during this awful learning stage - more light, less shake to worry about. However, I couldn't justify the cost, even to myself, as other than overkill. And certainly not until I know what I'm doing. I wanted some zoom right away though and I'm happy with my used lens until I know where I want to go.

I did find your comments very interesting - you sure seem to know a lot about it and can explain it very clearly. My thought, at least at this moment is that perhaps the only upgrade I might do is to replace this one with the IS version and forget the 2.8.

I'm going to play with this one as I learn and who knows, I may not want to replace it at all.

Thanks John, and by all means keep adding to the thread, your thoughts are very helpful.

johnfranklin

November 9th, 2006, 05:10 PM

In Shutter Priority, the user sets the shutter speed so it can't drop to a slower speed (or rise to a higher speed). I believe you meant the aperture can reach it's maximum resulting in underexposed images because there's still not enough light

Sorry to be picky but I didn't want someone to misinterpret an otherwise good explanation.

Actually, that was a really good catch. I sometimes have those lapses when I get caught up it the rapture of the inverse square law as well. I was going to tackle angle of acceptance as well, and how it relates to zoom ratio and focal length in the generation of rectilinear distortion. But,I thought the better of it. Again, good catch!

CalamityJanet

November 9th, 2006, 08:44 PM

JRGloeckler

November 9th, 2006, 09:38 PM

I have the 70-200 F2.8 IS and to be perfactly honest should have purchased the 70-200 F2.8 usm. Heres why, the IS is good if you can hold it really still at low ISO. Hand held will never be as sharp as taken with a tripod. I took an Alaskan trip and thought I caught one of the perfect pictures that one could point to as the picture. Looked good on the lcd. Got home, put it in Photoshop and blew it up to 100% and it was blurred. If I had shot it at ISO 400 it would have been the shot. The F2.8 usm is $600-700 dollars cheaper. And, you'll never know how good a lens is unless you put it on a tripod. The IS does not work on a tripod. Am I dissappointed in the lens, no it's tack sharp, but so is the non-IS version. I bought the hype of IS, blew some really good pictures and spent a lot of money doing it.

Jerry

bayhli

November 9th, 2006, 10:37 PM

Jerry,

My understanding is that you can use the IS with a tripod - you just have to turn the IS off when you do. (switch the lens to manual) ? You wouldn't need IS with a tripod anyway would you?

I was disappointed when I first used it too Janet, but I've gotten some very sharp photos with it - we just need more practice and to learn the sweet spots!

I'm a newbie too so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt!

NMarti

November 9th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Pat
I have the 28-135 IS lens and you can still use it on auto focus but the IS does have to be turned off on a tripod. That's part of the reason I'm unsure about the 70-200. I'm just not picking up that much distance but am improving on quality if the literature is all to be believed. Very confusing!:confused:

LeeOtsubo

November 9th, 2006, 11:54 PM

...Got home, put it in Photoshop and blew it up to 100% and it was blurred. If I had shot it at ISO 400 it would have been the shot. The F2.8 usm is $600-700 dollars cheaper. And, you'll never know how good a lens is unless you put it on a tripod. The IS does not work on a tripod. Am I dissappointed in the lens, no it's tack sharp, but so is the non-IS version. I bought the hype of IS, blew some really good pictures and spent a lot of money doing it.

Jerry
Pixel peeping at 100% is a good way to find fault with any lens. This would be the equivalent of using an eye loupe to examine negatives. Some pros may need for that kind of precision but most amateurs will never see any difference at "normal" viewing distances. Besides, with Canon dSLRs, the AA filter is going to deliver a soft image to start with so just apply some USM and don't worry about how it looks at 100%. My US$0.02 worth.

I agree the 70-200/2.8L IS USM is overkill for most amateurs. Most of my sports shots are with the 70-200/4L. I went with Canon for the high ISO performance, why not use it? The only time I go for the 70-200/2.8L is when it's an important event and the light is fading.

On a current Canon 70-200/2.8L IS USM, the IS automatically detects when it's on a tripod and deactivates itself. On lenses with older IS (e.g. 28-135), it is important to rememeber to turn off IS when tripod mounted or the image is likely to be blurred. In extreme cases, the IS can damage itself.

JRGloeckler

November 10th, 2006, 07:32 AM

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 09:33 AM

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Pat, I should have said that the IS automatically turns itself off when it senses it's on a tripod. I wasn't clear on that, sorry.

Lee, your right on the 100% view for normal shots. If I were printing a 4x6 print I probably would not look at the photo at that magnification. I'm building a library of photos for a future web site and printing. I do have some photos at 20x30" that require the 100% magnification view. And, I'm a little bit of a perfectionist.

Jerry

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as "preaching". You seem to have a good grasp on what you're doing so I should have known better. I've met so many people over the years who, upon buying a dSLR, immediately start "pixel peeping" and get all wrapped up in their underwear thinking there's something wrong with their lens because "the pixel at 1237x2249 displays 122,14,219 instead of 123,14,219 and that must be a sign of chromatic aberration and rectal-linear distortion" (learned the last from CalamityJanet, see post above). I try to explain to them that when I first converted to digital, I was shocked at how terrible my photos looked because I was didn't understand that my years of experience didn't transfer overnight to this new medium. Even the techniques are often different.

FYI, I've sold 30x40 posters from my Canon 10D (6MP) and most people never notice any degradation at normal viewing distances (10-15ft). My favorite is a dentist who has a 30x40 of him leading the peloton at a regional race. He has it mounted on the ceiling of his office so patients see it while in the seat. Of course, those people probably don't have your standards in mind at the moment! :D

CalamityJanet

November 10th, 2006, 04:09 PM

Lee, I'm glad you got a chuckle from it. I didn't realize that I was being so subtle.;) If I knew how I would have printed it out in big, shiny, obnoxious bold GOLD TEXT to help get my point across about johnfranklin's posts!:twisted:

BTW, I'm learning alot from all your imput! I'll be signing up soon for some of your classes. Right now I'm suffering from too much newness...new camera, new lens, new software, etc. As soon as I get a grip on all my loose ends I'll hopefully start to move forward. I got a good laugh from your pixel-peeping/getting tied up in underwear comment! That's exactly what I've been doing! Getting my panties all in a bunch, so to speak.:eek:

So how do you evaluate the performance of a new lens? If someone posts photos that are sized for the web can someone else use them to judge the performance of a lens?

Janet

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 05:07 PM

...So how do you evaluate the performance of a new lens? If someone posts photos that are sized for the web can someone else use them to judge the performance of a lens?

Janet

Hi CJ,
I started to write this earlier and thought no one would be interested so I deleted it. You must be a troublemaker! :p

The only way to evaluate a lens via a photo posted on the Web is to post the original image at 100% view. Even then, it's hit or miss because the target monitor probably isn't calibrated. A 100% crop can be used to evaluate a small area of the photo but that's like determining the health of an elephant by looking at the toenail. That's why one should keep an open mind about lens opinions on the Internet but not so open that one's brain falls out.

Most photographers use a highly sensitive, precisely calibrated, finely honed, technically complex tool called an "eyeball". There are some geeks who rely on MTF charts (http://www.photodo.com/product_390_p4.html) but you have to be a true geek weenie to study those things.

Most of us look at qualities like sharpness (ability to resolve details), contrast (ability to differentiate luminosity), saturation (richness of color), chromatic aberration (color fringing), speed (maximum aperture), speed (AF quickness) and build (is it built like a tank or a Tonka Toy). Many pros take weather-proofing as a given but this may not be a factor for amateurs. Pro lenses also include accessories such as hoods, tripod mounts, cases, rear filter holders and, most important, little red stripes to announce our exhalted status in life. :D

There are some givens that we try to follow: Primes are optically superior to zooms (usually), short zooms are preferable to long zooms (28-135 is better than 28-200), white Canon lenses are better for picking up girls (not usually), and he who dies with the most lenses is still dead. Most amateurs can do nicely with 2-3 lenses but trying to use 1 lens for everything is like using a hammer to drive screws.

Geez, I'm a verbose old f__t! Sorry, didn't mean to put you to sleep. Hope that helps.

kimh

November 10th, 2006, 06:49 PM

No, that was very good. But I still don't know a lot about lenses:(
But I'm trying:rolleyes:
kimh

JRGloeckler

November 10th, 2006, 07:14 PM

CalamityJanet

November 10th, 2006, 07:18 PM

Thanks, Lee!

I didn't mean to be a troublemaker:o . I just started to wonder if it makes sense to look at digital images on the net when shopping for a lens since there are so many variables involved. I was thinking of posting a few of the shots I've taken with this lens if it would help Nancy or others decide which lens they'd like to own.

For me, your point about the eyeball was well taken. While I can't begin to interpret those MTF charts, I know what appeals to my own eyes. I guess there's just going to a risk factor in any camera/lens purchase, no matter how much research you do. I spend a lot of time lurking on this forum and there are many times when I prefer the "before" image instead of the "after" image, so what do I know?:o

Janet

BTW, I never thought of my new white lens as a pick-up tool (I guess I'm too old:mad: )...but I really have wondered if it might increase the possibility of getting mugged by a thief!

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 07:31 PM

No, that was very good. But I still don't know a lot about lenses:(
But I'm trying:rolleyes:
kimh

You're not supposed to learn everything all at once! Just cogitate on this stuff and, one day soon, you'll suddenly see the light. How soon depends on how much time you spend cogitating.:D

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 07:39 PM

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1wxaJNE7bMFFANaWxB7PHE8XwGuIIq

This is the picture that I depended on the IS for. I shoot with the 20D and the ISO was 100 @ f5.6, I was really dissappointed.

Jerry

It's been cropped quite a bit. Also, the EXIF says it was at f4.5, not f5.6. I think it may have been a DoF problem. Have you used Canon EOS Viewer Utility to see where your AF point was set? That might help determine the problem. You're right, that photo "coulda been a contenda" but missed AF.

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 07:52 PM

...I just started to wonder if it makes sense to look at digital images on the net when shopping for a lens since there are so many variables involved. I was thinking of posting a few of the shots I've taken with this lens if it would help Nancy or others decide which lens they'd like to own.

For me, your point about the eyeball was well taken. While I can't begin to interpret those MTF charts, I know what appeals to my own eyes. I guess there's just going to a risk factor in any camera/lens purchase, no matter how much research you do. I spend a lot of time lurking on this forum and there are many times when I prefer the "before" image instead of the "after" image, so what do I know?:o

Janet

BTW, I never thought of my new white lens as a pick-up tool (I guess I'm too old:mad: )...but I really have wondered if it might increase the possibility of getting mugged by a thief!

Photos on the 'net are only useful if you know the specific post-processing that was applied and how the photo was prepared for the web. You'll hear a lot of people say, "Straight out of the camera with no PP." Just the fact of resizing for the Web creates anomalies that may impact the image. Before you evaluate a photo on the web to evaluate a lens, you have to evaluate the knowledge of the poster. Boy! That's confusing even by my standards! My only excuse is that I learned English as a second language!

You want to buy lenses from a place that has a good, no-questions asked return policy and no BS "restocking fee". That's one of the reasons I use B&H.

Most thieves are too stupid to know what a white lens is worth. To them, a camera is a camera, parts is parts. A big white lens might actually be more useful in smacking a would-be mugger across the forehead.

JRGloeckler

November 10th, 2006, 07:55 PM

I have not heard of the Viewer Utility.
I got the 70-200 IS about a week before the trip so was not that familure with the lens. Also I only had the 20D for about a month. Woulda shoulda coulda.
Kinda off the subject of the 70-200 f4. Sorry.

Jerry

NMarti

November 10th, 2006, 08:12 PM

Now here's a nice fly in the ointment:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082414canon70-200f4lens.asp

JRGloeckler

November 10th, 2006, 08:21 PM

I really didn't think of it as an AF problem, but could be.

Jerry

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=12MJVxHA4PsyHUntO8ERIFU4n75KnJ

bayhli

November 10th, 2006, 08:55 PM

Jerry,

Again, I'm too new to be offering advice but here's one thing that affected my pictures negatively at first. It may or may not apply to your image and I don't know what mode you shot it in. (I have the 30D)

In any of the auto modes, you will get the "multiple auto focus points" displayed in red, in the viewer. These commonly result in the actual focus point not being what we wanted or expected it to be, at least for us newbies. My pictures were generally off, just that little bit, sometimes a lot.

I changed to only using one centre focus display point and do much better! Now I know for certain I'll get the focus point I want.

Like I said, it may not even be related to your image but it spoils a lot of pictures when you are not aware of it.

Very cute little guys by the way, and the water looks delicious!

bayhli

November 10th, 2006, 09:32 PM

Nancy..... here's yet another review site, but the reviews are to the point, short and sweet! It looks fairly new but I liked it.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

JRGloeckler

November 10th, 2006, 09:40 PM

That picture was taken at Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. The water was just above freezing and there were glaciers all around. It was beautiful, rugged and cold and I had a great time taking photos.
I almost always shoot in AV unless I know that I'm going to need a higher ISO and then I'll use TV. One of your neighbors, Michael Richeman, has a WEB site called Luminous-Landscape. I have learned a lot about digital photography at the site.

Jerry

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 09:52 PM

That picture was taken at Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. The water was just above freezing and there were glaciers all around. It was beautiful, rugged and cold and I had a great time taking photos.

Jerry

With the lens set to f4.5 and, I'm guessing, distance to the otters about 20 ft, your DoF was about 4.8 inches. If the 20D was set to All AF Points Active, there's no telling where it was "looking".

The AF Point data seems to have been stripped out of the file so I couldn't see it with EOS Viewer Utility. Here's (http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/gallery/view_img.php?id=14246)what it's supposed to look like. The center red reticle was the active AF Point when I released the shutter.

If you have the original, unmucked-with file (that's a technical term), load EVU and check it out. HTH.

JRGloeckler

November 10th, 2006, 10:10 PM

Lee, I have Elements 4. Where would the Viewer Utility be found? Is it a software that is purchased or one that is imbedded somewhere in another program?
The otters were close. I was standing on the bow of the ship and they were about 20 feet away from the ship.

Jerry

NMarti

November 10th, 2006, 10:20 PM

Pat
Thanks for the site. I think I'm going to wait until more reviews come out on that new 70-200 F4L IS and see what they think.

I also was tripped up by the AF focus point. Now I try to shoot the same as you - with a single point. I almost sent my 28-135 IS lens back because of it. Thanks to Norm I made the adjustments and now really like the lens.

bayhli

November 10th, 2006, 10:48 PM

Hi Nancy,

I read about the AF Points on the Canon Forum - trips a lot of people up apparently. There are so many "little" things that make it difficult to learn. I had, and still do, a Pentax 35mm film camera. There were not many learning resources back then and I eventually just gave it up and operated on auto. I am determined to get this digitally!!

I'm going back to basics and joining Lee's workshop. I read and read and just end up frustrated - too much at once I think. I have it - and then gone! Anyway, enough of my sad tale....

Don't feel alone with the lens ordeal - today I'm back to "needing" the 2.8 . :D It doesn't matter what I shoot, my initial reaction is always that I need to lighten or brighten it up, which is why I'm attracted to that 2.8 . Perhaps it's because we don't have that bright sunshine up here in the north - and there is certainly none now. I'll use this f/4 until I'm sure.

Take your time until you are sure... Santa can bring a gift certificate!

bayhli

November 10th, 2006, 10:58 PM

Brrrrrr....... good for you Jerry!

I hear it is spectacular up there but have never been; living here, that kind of cold doesn't have much appeal.

You must have had some unique beautiful photo opportunities; hope you post some of them here, I'd love to see them. I know you are disappointed in your Otters but they are still beautiful to look at - and you were there! No wonder the colour of the water is so different...

I've downloaded tons from the Luminous Landscape, it IS a great website. Haven't read them all as yet but I find them very easy to understand. An amazing amount of information available for the taking. He's really done a super job there.

bayhli

November 10th, 2006, 11:06 PM

No Lee, you are not "a verbose old f__t!" Keep that wisdom coming!

I sent you yet another email tonight by the way (#3) - so please have a look in case it didn't make it through. :)

LeeOtsubo

November 10th, 2006, 11:15 PM

JRGloeckler

November 11th, 2006, 11:51 AM

Thanks for the info, I'll dig that cd out.

Pat, I'll start a new thread- Alaska. Just for you.

Jerry

bayhli

November 11th, 2006, 11:57 AM

Pat, I'll start a new thread- Alaska. Just for you.

Wonderful - looking forward to it!

JRGloeckler

November 11th, 2006, 12:30 PM

It's there.

Jerry

bayhli

November 11th, 2006, 12:32 PM

Hi Lee,

I'm aware of this one way to view the Auto Focus Points for an image - is this the one you are referring to or is there another I'm not aware of. I got out my CD (30D version) as well and there is nothing obvious that I don't already have installed.

Here's where it is at present:
Open ZoombrowserEx Application (Canon Utilities)
Open Preview Mode Tab (3rd tab at the top)
Click on image thumbnail to display the image on the canvas
Double click on the image thumbnail again, to open a larger version of the
image
Click on the icon "Show auto focus points" icon along the top (about the
middle)

The actual focus points will display in red.

This is really useful and I'd be interested if there is a bigger and better version on the CD that I'm not aware of.

Thanks!

LeeOtsubo

November 11th, 2006, 04:52 PM

You can use ZB or EVU. I believe even the older Canon File Viewer Utility FVU has the capability to view AF Points.

BTW, there wasn't a new question on your last email. Did you rx my reply to that effect?

bayhli

November 11th, 2006, 06:12 PM

Hi Lee,

So there is another utility - EVU - guess I don't have it.

Looks like we're not getting each other's emails at all, since the first one. I'll email you through the forum if that's ok. I'll include my email and perhaps you can give me yours to at least check that out. Strange....

johnfranklin

November 15th, 2006, 01:17 AM

I bought the Canon EF 70-200/f4.0L USM a few weeks ago and I've been a bit disappointed with the results I've gotten. Since I'm very new to dSLR photography I ASSumed there must be some user error involved, but I had no idea that it was possible I might be generating rectal-linear distortion!:eek: :D

Janet
I had no idea that everyone was going to be taking pictures from the gutter, or I would have suggested bracing the camera on the curb. That would have negated the need for IS lenses, but could have contributed to the introduction of rectal-innier distortion.:rolleyes: But seriously folks, Image stabilization ONLY AFFECTS camera movement, not subject movement. So moving subjects at low shutter speeds will still be as blurry as ever. Of course, there is some status in being able pay much more for every blurry picture taken. I know I would be proud. The most prominent form of rectilinear distortion is "barrel distortion" (straight lines bowing outward).It is most common in wide angle lenses. So you see, optical engineers take it out of the lenses, then give to McDonalds who puts it back into the photographers.:D

johnfranklin

November 15th, 2006, 01:50 AM

Hi CJ,
.

There are some givens that we try to follow: Primes are optically superior to zooms (usually), short zooms are preferable to long zooms (28-135 is better than 28-200), white Canon lenses are better for picking up girls (not usually), and he who dies with the most lenses is still dead. Most amateurs can do nicely with 2-3 lenses but trying to use 1 lens for everything is like using a hammer to drive screws.

Geez, I'm a verbose old f__t! Sorry, didn't mean to put you to sleep. Hope that helps.
When hammering screws never try to force them, always use the biggest hammer you can afford. What I think you meant to say is: LOW RATIO zooms are preferable to HIGH RATIO zooms. BUT,long zooms (high focal length numbers) introduce less distortion than short zooms (low focal length numbers) which generally introduce large quantities of barrel distortion. And zoom lenses which traverse from very short focal lengths (say 28mm) to long focal lengths (say 200mm) are worst of all because at 28mm they exhibit huge quantities of barrel distortion and by 200mm exhibit large amounts of pincushion distortion (straight lines bowed in). The lucky focal lengths where straight lines actually exist (if at all) are around 40 to 45mms. Since barrel and pincushion are rectilinear distortions, you now know why I didn't tackle it in the beginning.;) I've always suspected that my black Nikon lenses were the problem with my social life.:eek:

LeeOtsubo

November 15th, 2006, 08:47 AM

...What I think you meant to say is: LOW RATIO zooms are preferable to HIGH RATIO zooms...

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Not an excuse but I've had 3 careers which tend to conflict when posting technical responses. As an engineer, I took the time to be precise and, often, verbose. As a marketing executive, I reduced technical issues down to financial impacts to get the point across to ADHD-afflicted CEOs in a few seconds and as a college professor, I tried to reduce complex technologies down to simple analogies to build a base for the next lesson.

On forums like this, with a wide range of skills and interests, I don't always use the correct terminology or strike the correct "tone" so I apologize to anyone I confused.

BTW, the next Webcast demo is Thursday, Nov 30 @ 6PM Pacific Time (9PM for you Right Coasters). I have room for 4 people so send me an email or PM if you want to experience a photography Webcast.