70-200 f/4 IS usm

I would like some feedback on this lens. I just got mine yesterday and it makes a little grinding noise when it focuses, and what do you think of IQ? let me know what you think...

I got a 70-200/4 IS USM last year as a backup for my 70-200/2.8 IS... I probably now use it just as much, possibly even more-so.
It's image quality is top notch, plus it's about 1/3 lighter and smaller than the f2.8 lens, and it costs about half what the current f2.8 IS version does. Build quality, sealing and durability are all excellent, too. I've been shooting with the f2.8 version for going on 14 years without even a hiccup of a problem, and it's one of my most used lenses. I haven't been using it anywhere near as long, but have no reason to think the f4 version isn't equally durable. It certainly feels up to it.
A few key differences between the versions are:
- The f4 lens is a several years newer model with better IS... 3 to 4 stops vs 2 to 3 stops on the older f2.8... the newest f2.8 "Mark II" has IS that's equal to the f4's.
- The differences in image quality and sharpness aren't very great among all the Canon 70-200s. But many folks think the oldest model - the f2.8 non-IS - is the weaker of the bunch (by a pretty small margin).... Most als think the f4 non-IS and f2.8 IS "Mk I" are about equal at apertures they both share... And many feel the f4 IS has been the sharpest of the bunch (also by a modest margin) until recently when the f2.8 IS "Mk II" came out and equaled it.
- Focus speed is excellent on all models, tho the f2.8 versions may be slightly superior in lower light situations. It depends in part upon what camera is being used, but most Canon camera models have one or more AF points that give enhanced performance when paired up with an f2.8 or faster lens. In general, more light let in can only help AF, but differences are slight and won't be noticeable in anything other than the most challenging situations. Even then, all the 70-200s have USM and will out-perform non-USM lenses in speed, precision, quietness and reliability.
- The f2.8 versions render a slightly smoother background blur effect... But the f2.8 "Mark I" is a tiny bit softer at it's largest aperture. The f2.8 "Mark II" is more comparable to the f4 version wide open. Color rendition and saturation are very nice on all of them.
- The f2.8 lenses come with a tripod mounting ring. With the f4 versions the Tripod RIng A (w) is sold separately, adding about $160 to the total cost of the lens if you want the mounting ring too.
- The f2.8 lenses use a "petal" shaped lens hood, while the f4 lenses use a simple, squared off hood. As L-series lenses, all of them include the hood, which is nice. (Note: there are third party "clone" petal-shaped hoods available for the f4 versions, if really wanted).
- The f2.8 lenses use 77mm filters, which are a fairly standard size among Canon lenses. The f4 lenses use a 67mm filter, with is rather less common size among Canon lenses, tho it seems to be becoming more common on newer models.
Some of these differences are minor considerations, depending upon how you use the lens. For example, if you only shoot handheld, you might never miss or want the tripod mounting ring. For me, I could care less if the hood is petal shaped or not... only care that it's effective (and they all are). I also rarely use filters on telephoto lenses, so it's not much of a concern to me that the size is sort of an outlier among my lenses.
I would suggest you use your lens for a week or two and see if the noise settles down. It's not uncommon for a brand new lens to have some noises at first, as brand new parts learn to mesh with each other and freshly applied lubricants work their way into mechanisms. The IS will always make a little noise when it's working... might take a little getting used to, if you are unfamiliar with it.
If the lens still seems noisy or gets worse after some use, maybe go to a store that stocks the lens and try another alongside to see if it's more or less noisy... Then if still concerned you might talk to the retailer or Canon Service dept. about it. I suspect the lens will "quiet down" after a bit of use. All the Canon 70-200s are really reliable workhorses, typically.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Similar Messages

Canon 200 f/2 manual focus

Hi all,
This question is related to the Canon 200mm f/2.0 lens.
Does focusing work by moving the black rubber focusing ring
if the lens is in manual focus mode AND IF there is no
canon body attached to the end of the lens (i.e. it is not
under current/power)?
Say I want to project a source in an optical lab with this lens onto a detector,
and want to use it in fully manual focus mode.
This did not work with the Canon 200 f/1.8 AF lenses.
Regards,
Bogar

Hello ebiggs,
Thanks for your response.
You say "on external focusing Canon lens" the focus works when set to MF.
The Canon 200 f/2 counts as an "external focusing lens"?
I am asking this, because the manual focusing definitely does not work
on the older Canon 200 f/1.8L USM lens, even when turned to MF mode, but
without a Canon camera attached. So I guess with your definition the 200/1.8 is
not an external focusing lens. When a Canon body is attached to the 200/1.8,
then the MF works fine, but one needs to power up the lens and its CPU so that
it converts the motion of the rubber ring into electronics, and ultimately motion
of internal lens elements.
I understand that this is not a standard use of the lens, so hoping that
Canon afficionados will know this. Clearly, the lens does not change
its outer dimensions while focusing. But one can see the focus changes
when projecting e.g. a landscape on a piece of white paper.
Best regards,
Bogar

Anyone experienced a Lens that works vertically not horizontally

I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II coupled with a 60D camera. The Lens was dropped (fell out of the truck) and hit the pavement. I take sports/action pics and since then when I take pics "veritcally" (turning camera sideways for a full length shot) the pics are fine - no issues with the lens focusing or anything. However, when I take pic horizontally, they look like I added a vignette type feature where the exact center point is in focus and then it blurs as it goes outward. It is more pronounced when extending to 200mm versus 70mm.
Any idea what this may be and if a fix is even possible (costly or not?) and why it is damaged vertically and not horizontally?
All feedback welcome!!
Thank you.

You'll have to send the lens in and get it looked at, to get any idea if it's repairable and/or what the cost might be.
It sounds as if some of the elements or groups in the lens are loose or decentered badly, or another part is loose inside.
I'd suspect the group that operates the IS, since that operates on vertical and horizontal axes. If one is damaged due to the hard fall, it might only cause problems in one orientation. It also might be a part knocked loose and flopping around inside, that drops into the light path when the lens is in one orientation, but falls back out of the way when in the other orientation. AFAIK (and I certainly have never disassembled one of those lenses and studied how it works, so this is just a guess), any decentering or slippage of most of the other elements and groups would effect the lens in all orientations.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

What equipment to rent for a cruise to Alsaka, with a trip to Katmai National Park

We are planning a cruisetour to Alaska in the summer of 2014. I was wondering what equipment would be best to rent for the trip. I am at best a total amature when it comes to photography. We will on on shio for seven days, then going to Danali National Park, and also to Katmai National Park. Any and all help with this is greatly appreciated. Thanks. George
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Alaska is a target rich State to shoot some really breathtaking shots. But, you do have to be careful. YOU will not be at the top of the food chain. That place is firmly secured by the Polar Bear. You don't want to get close to these guys. If you go looking for bears, take as long a lens you can get. The absolute minimum would be a 100-400mm zoom. Alaska, is also home of some really big grizzly bears, these guys are no slouch either. For the beautiful panaramas you may want to invest in a ultra wide angle lens, like the EF-S-10-22mm. It does not have IS, but you can get some stunning wide angle shots from from the trusty tripod. Also, the 10-22 gets rave reviews of image quality from some of the major reviewers, Ken Rockwell, give it a "L" quality review. I wouldn't spend any extra money on a EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM. It is a large heavy lens. But I would opt for the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM, it is much lighter, and has good IS, and will be easy to sling around on those eagles. You fail to mention what lenses you now have, but a good mid range telephoto would be good to have for the trip. Shots taken from the cruise ship should be hand held, because of the vibration of the ship will pass through to the tripod. So, any lens you shoot with from the ship should have IS, if not you may have to up your ISO to 1000 or more, and shoot at a high shutter speed, to keep out blur of movement. For that mid range telephoto you may want to look at either the EF 24-105 f4L IS USM, or the EF 24-70 f4L IS USM, both are Canon L quality lenses, and reasonably priced. Those lenses I have suggested will fill all your needs for your trip, with the sharpest quality lenses for your camera. I would suggest you purchase a refurbished 7D to upgrade your camera body. The 7D is the best wildlife camera available now. You can get one from Adorama, now on a refurbished special from Canon. You can also buy the lenses refurbished from Adorama, and B&H, and even used from KEH and save a good amount of money.
Enjoy your trip.

Which is the better lens for wildlife, sport action canon 70-200 is usm ii series L or Canon 100-400

Which would be a better for wildlife and sport action Canon 70-200 mm is usm ii serie L f/2.8 or Canon 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6?

On what camera? It makes a big difference depending upon whether you are using full frame or a crop camera.
Also depends upon the particular sports and type of wildlife most commonly involved, how much reach you might need. Outdoor, daytime sports vs indoor and nightime sports is another key factor.
On a crop camera a 70-200 is generally a lot more usable than it is on full frame, for sports and wildlife. An f2.8 lens and 70-200 might be ideal for indoor sports even with a crop camera. It also might be plenty for large game that can be pretty closely approacted. But for small and more shy wildlife, sports on a larger playing field, you'll more likely need the 100-400. But as an f4.5-5.6 lens that's going to be more of a daytime-only lens.
The 100-400mm is unusual in that it's a push/pull zoom. This can be particularly fast to use and makes the lens popular among photograhers shooting fast moving subjects such as birds in flight and air shows.
If you give serious consideration to the 70-200/2.8 IS II in combination with teleconverter EF 2X III, I'd suggest renting and trying them toghether first. The reason is that a stronger 2X teleconverter has more effect on image quality than a weaker TC. The specific combination of the 70-200 Mark II lens and the 2X Mark III TC is pretty darned good.... better than the combo earlier versions of each item. But whether or not it's up to your expectastions is a judgment call only you can make. So it might be wise to rent before you buy, just to be sure.
If instead you start to take a hard look at the 100-400mm, once again you might want to rent it and give it a try. Some people really like the push/pull zoom design. Some don't. (I'm one of the latter... but to be fair this is largely an old prejudice from trying to use that type of zoom in the past, long before IS. I always found push-pull zooms hard to get a steady shot with.... But the 100-400's IS goes a long way toward solving that problem.)
And those two really aren't your only choices.
Personally I use a pair of crop cameras (7D), most of the time one fitted with a 70-200, and the other fitted with a 300/4 IS, sometimes in combination with an EF 1.4X II teleconverter. Or, when I don't need to be mobile and can set up a tripod, I'll use a 300/2.8 IS, both by itself and with EF 1.4X II or 2X II teleconverters.
Another possibility is two lower cost lenses... such as a 70-200/4 IS in combination with a third party lens such as the Sigma 120-400 OS or 150-500 OS. Those lenses are considerably less expensive than the 70-200/2.8 II and the 100-400, respectively. You might be able to afford both and still find they meet your needs very well.
I use the 70-200/4 IS, as well as a copy of the first version of the 70-200/2.8 IS, and they are excellent lenses too. No doubt about it, the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II is top of the heap and exceptionally good... but rest assured those other 70-200s are no slouches.
If using a full frame camera, for large field sports and more distant, smaller wildlife.... better start saving up. You're going to need one or two of the super telephotos, such as the new EF 200-400/4L IS 1.4X that I'm saving up for!
p.s. By the way, if not already doing so you might want to try Back Button Focusing. It's a very popular technique among sports/action and wildlife photographers. I've been using it for years for virtually everything I shoot, and can't imagine using any other method now.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Lens Profile for Canon EF 55-200 4.5-5.6 II USM

Hello,
Das anyone have the Lens Profile for Canon EF 55-200 4.5-5.6 II USM ?
Thanks,
Mário

I'm also interested in this.
Is there anyone out there able to provide one?

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens Profile

The Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens does currently not have a lens profile in LR 5.x. What is the likelihood that Adobe will add one?

The lens profile delineates corrections for geometric (barrel or pincushion) distortion and for light fall-off (vignetting). The CA correction and defringe functions are separate tools that just happen to be grouped together with profile application function and the perspective distortion tools in the same panel because there is a certain logic to having them under one roof.

Efs 55-250 4-5.6 is lens VS the ef 70-200 f4 fl usm. Which is better?

Obviously these two lenses look like beginner and pro levels, I'm figuring the glass is better on the 2nd lens. But I'd like opinions from those who have used the "gorgeous" 70-200!
Bigger is not always bettter. Lots of these "football" lenses are manual focus! Fast and manual is not for one with glasses!

ebiggs1 wrote:
"... I'm figuring the glass is better on the 2nd lens."
A lens, any lens, is a sum of it's specs not a single one. You must weight them all vs one or the other.
For me there is no question, as I would destroy the 55-250mm (flimsy construction) in short time for the kind of use I put equipment through. So it is out of the question as a lens that works is better than a broken one.
But for the vast marjority of Rebel users the 55-250mm is fine. What you would gain by spending the extra bucks is only for you to tell.
Bottom line is the 70-200mm f4 will out perform the 55-250mm, period. But do you need that performance?
Whoa, "A lens, any lens is a sum of it's specs not a single one...." That's deep.
"For me there is no question, as I would destroy the 55-250mm ..." Dang you're hard on equipment. Stay away from the china!
"For the vast marhority of Rebel users the 55-250mm is fine...." But not for the OP?
"Bottom line is the 70-200mm f4 will out perform the 55-250mm period." Wait a moment. I don't have psychic abilities. In what ways will the 70-200mm outperform the 55-250mm?
LOL,

Lightroom 5.6 / CR 8.6 not recognizing my Canon 16-35mm f4 IS USM lens

I have Lightroom 5.6, Camera Raw 8.6.
I'm using a Canon 5D Mark 3.   I had a Canon EF 16-35 f2.8 USM for years. Under Lens Corrections / Profile I would use the Auto Setup and LR would detect the lens automatically.
I switched to the EF 16-35 f4 IS USM recently, even with LR 5.6 and Camera Raw 8.6 the Auto Setup doesn't recognize the new lens.    I manually select Canon, then within the model drop down list - the EF 16-35 f4 IS USM does indeed show up.
I checked the EXIF data - it's listed as "EF16-35 f/4L IS USM" (notice the lack of space between the EF and 16.   However the profile is listed as "Canon 16-35 mm f/4 IS USM" (notice the space between 16-35 and mm).   Looking at the drop down list, this appears to be the ONLY lens listed with a space between the focal length and mm.
Not sure what the source of the mismatch is here.   I'm trying to figure out how to find the Lens ID in the EXIF info.
Ideas, suggestions?

If LR supports the lens natively then manually selecting the lens and doing a Save New Lens Profile Defaults shouldn't be necessary as Auto should work. Rikk, since your LR screenshot says Custom instead of Auto I expect that you're seeing the same thing as the OP and may have already set your lens profile defaults, manually or having to select a lens profile manually seems less odd that it does to the OP.
In any case, I think there are two problems, or perhaps two different manifestations of the same problem:
1) Looking at the EXIFTool LensInfo tag list the Lens ID is apparently 507 for this lens, but the Lens ID in the lens profile file from Adobe is 251 which corresponds to a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html#LensType
It does not seem to be enough to change the 251 to 507 in a copy of the LCP file and put that file in the User's lens profile area. I did this and Auto still doesn't work, although the 507 copy of the profile is found if I choose Custom and pick Canon. Without the LensID = 507 lens profile existing, Custom / Canon chooses the 16-35 f/2.8 lens.
2) If we select the supposedly correct lens profile manually, then there is distinct pincushion distortion in the door edge, and this distortion is actually slightly worse in the corrected image than in the original uncorrected image. Here is the corrected image:
This makes me wonder if the correct lens distortion data is even in the lens profile file attributed to the 16-35 f/4 lens or its for some other lens. An obvious suspect is the other lens profile with the LensID = 251, the 70-200 f/2.8 II lens, but if I choose that profile it does apply different corrections so the profile is not the same for that, either.
In any case, the proper profile is not being selected automatically and the distortion corrections seem off if the profile is selected manually.

Will the extender ef 2x iii work with the ef 28-300mm 3.5/5.6L. IS USM

Will this work with the ef 28-300mm 3.5/5.6L IS USM? Just came from the motorcycle races over the weekend and wish I had a little more length, are there any focusing issues when these two pieces are paired together? Thanks for the information.

ebiggs1 wrote:
The Canon 2x will not fit on wide angle zooms, standard zooms, wide angle primes or many third-party lense.
If you buy a 2x teleconverter and are going to use it on any lens other than the ones listed below, you are probably not going to be happy with the result, if it works at all:
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
- Canon 200mm f/2 IS
- Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS or IS II
- Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS or IS II
- Canon 500mm f/4L IS or IS II
- Canon 600mm f/4L IS or IS II
The 200 f/2.8L would also be a nice lens to use with a 2X extender.
http://trulandphoto.zenfolio.com/
http://trulandphoto.blogspot.com/

Canon T3i + EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens?

I am a young photographer who currently owns the T3i Costco kit (Comes with the 18-55 IS II and 55-250 IS II). I am very interested in buying the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM lens, because I love doing up-close photos. Would the lens work well with the T3i, and would it be any better than the 55-250 IS II?
Thanks,
WolfheartFilms (Caleb)

There are a few generalizations that most photographers agree on where it comes to the engineering of lenses. Heavier lenses typically contain more glass and therefore are engineered to a higher level of precision. Another one is, a shorter zoom range is easier to control for optical aberrations over its entire range than a lens of similar build quality over a longer zoom range".
So, yeah, the 70-200mm f/4L is better controled, optically, over its entire range than the more far reaching 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II but as cicopo has pointed out, you lose a bit of range on both ends in return.
Edited to add: I will not suggest that it is preferable to execute quality post-processing in response to less than desired results, but it is considered entirely acceptable. I spent 5 years photographing and printing images with my 35mm camera equipped with a 50mm lens. I experimented constantly in the darkroom with paper offering differing levels of contrast, dodging and burning images, and in general creating my images. No one ever suggested that my prints were anything less than genuine. Make your own art.

Hi is there any difference between lens 24-70 mm f/2.8 L USM and 24-70 mm f/2.8 L II USM?

Hi is there any difference between lens 24-70 mm f/2.8 L USM and 24-70 mm f/2.8 L II USM?

The image quality difference is subtle -- but like most lenses, you wont notice an image quality difference if you're viewing images on a small display. You'd have to view them at 100% size.
The original 24-70 is a "reverse zoom". When the lens is extended it's 24mm. When it's fully retracted it's 70mm. A reverse zoom has an advantage when being used with a lens hood since the hood stays in place but the lens pulls back as you zoom in (but that's when the angle of view is narrower). You'll notice the hood on the version II is much shallower -- it's designed to work at the 24mm end but that means the hood is not providing much help at the 70mm end.
The lens uses 82mm filter threads. That may sound inconsequential but the 24-70 and 70-200 are often used as a nice complimentary pair... but that means the filters that fit the 70-200 wont fit the 24-70 -- necessisitating that you (a) buy filters (ND, polarizers, etc.) in both sizes, or (b) buy everything in the 82mm size and use "step up rings" to allow the filters to be used on the 77mm thread lenses.
There was a bit of "zoom creep" on the original. I have not used the II so I can't comment on whether or not it still has "zoom creep". (zoom creep is where the weight of the lens is actually enough that merely pointing it up or down can cause the lens to want to creep in that direction... thereby changing your focal length if you're not holding on to it. It's subtle... it's not like it slides to the limit... but it doesn't stay precisely where you left it. It will move a bit.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

My EF-s 18-200 IS lens died. Frankly it was the worst lens Canon ever made, horrible vignetting.

I want to get a different lens instead for my Rebel xti, or maybe two. I'm an amateur but want good quality photos, mostly landscapes but also close-ups, so I like a versatile lens. I was thinking of going to the L series but considering the cost, is that overkill for both the intended purpose and the adequate-but-not-extraordinay Rebel body? Would appreciate any guidance.

Hi, Jim0
You have seen the optical compromises needed to make a "does everything" lens, and you didn't like it. Rather than grab another one try getting two more specialized ones.
You want to do landscapes, so you want something wide. Wide on a crop needs to be wider than wide on full frame.
A Canon or Sigma 10-20 or 10-22 would be good for the wide landscapes.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/N/0/Ntt/CA102235EF
For just a bit more you could have the incredibly wide aperture (for a zoom) new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens. No one has ever made a zoom with anything even close to an aperture this bright. .
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx
For the long end, I'd consider going with a 70-200 L lens. They are all good, and they range in price from just $700 for the very sharp f/4 non-IS version to $2300 for the f/2.8 and IS version.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The old advice of buying new glass instead of new bodies is good advice.
Good luck!
Scott
Canon 6D, Canon T3i, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; EF 85mm f/1.8; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites
Why do so many people say "fer-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

ITunes wont open Error -200

yep
well there i was opening iTunes
and BLAMMO !
ITunes wont open
error -200
what am i doing wrong now
also coincedently my sound output aint working

Also, I have not moved any files since updating. Still won't do anything.

IPhone limited to 130 apps at a time! 6,200 apps available in app store

The i phone is limited to nine app screen i notice this when i try to move on to a tenth screen and it would not let me and also when you download a app after all 9 screen are full the app dose not show up but the app store says it is installed apple needs to expand the amount of screen allowed. you then end up having to delete 2 apps download 1 app in able to make the invisible app appear you have to try this one out for your self so you get a better idea of what i mean so it looks like we are limited to 144 apps per iPhone subtract 14 apps that come default on the screen not including the 4 that are on the bar below you are left with 130 apps that can be downloaded and use at a time per i phone that ***** there are over 6,200 apps available in the app store as i type this to you and apple is limiting me to only carry 130 at a time there is somthing worng with this and i think somthing should be done!

No acutally what that means is most people like myself have to install 30 apps just to get the iphone to do half the things it should have done out of the box. Sure some are wants but most are "need" in order for it to do the things my old palm treo 600 could do, and still there's not copy and past and no video. On top of that they have a stupid 130 limit. I'd love to hear why that is.

70-200 f/4 IS usm

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for