Just got my 70-200 f4 L?

[Jayson]

I just got my 70-200 f4 L and I must say this lens is amazing. I have taken a ton of pictures of the kids and am a very happy customer. The other day I finally got a chance to use it outside.These aren't amazing pictures by any means.This one was taken sitting in the car out the side window. Maybe next time I will have to get out of the car.First one I was amazed at how accurately this focused. I was shooting through tree branches. This was almost a 100% crop. very little post processing on any of them. Both with XSi.[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x800/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.64/2009_5F00_02_5F00_23_5F00_IMG_5F00_2231.jpg[/img]





This one I was panning chasing a hawk. This was actually shot through the windshield. Amazing accuracy. Again probably 95% crop.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x800/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.64/2009_5F00_02_5F00_23_5F00_IMG_5F00_2248.jpg[/img]

[EdN]

Your shots aren't bad but this is meant to say, "just wait until you get a chance to get into the outdoors more in spring and after you get to be more comfortable with the lens." The lens is really excellent and your work will get WAY better.

[alex]

Is this the IS or non-IS version?


I'm drooling over the idea of getting the 70-200 f/4 as my next lens (I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS), but I'm not sure if I need the IS or not. I would mostly be shooting landscapes and portraits or candids. Not technically stuff that requires IS, but it's always nice to have, right? It's also a big difference in price. If I consider getting the f/4 IS, I know I'll be tempted to get the f/2.8 non-IS instead, cause it's very close in price. argh.

[Jayson]

This is the IS version. I had the same question, but I found the IS version new for under $1000, so I couldn't justify not getting this version for only $250 more. I did some searching to find it, but it paid off. I have taken a ton of better pictures with this lens then what I have just posted. These were my only outdoor shots I have taken with it. I wanted to show just how accurate and how well this lens focused. It is awesome, I would recommend it very highly to anyone who asked. I haven't taken it off my camera since the purchase.

[greggf]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_1321-_5B00_50_25005D00_.jpg[/img]


Hi Jayson...


Glad you like the 70-200 f4IS....it is a fantastic lens, and ultra sharp to boot. After the HUGE discussion earlier in the forum about which lens to get(it almost got personal with me and MVers), I think you made a good decision. I've used the 2.8, and it is a fantastic lens as well, but I really like my f4 better(lighter, smaller, sharper, and cheaper!!!), and the bokeh is almost as good as the 2.8. I typically shoot it at f4, and have never been disappointed at all. Good choice, and please continue to post pics up. Here are a couple just for kicks...the horse was taken at 200mm @f5, the leaf taken at 185mm@f5.6, the horse in camera jpg, the leaf was RAW. let me know what you think[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_0195-_5B00_50_25005D00_.jpg[/img]

[Joel Bookhammer]

Hey Gregg great images, I really like the one of the leaf, did you "find" the leaf that way or did you set up the elements of the image?