Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · 11:55 PM

I already have the 70-200 f/4L, but it doesn't have image stabilization.
I have a monopod, but I still have to remember to carry it with me.

I've been wanting the image stabilized version for just about forever.

Well, now my shop has it available, so I just ordered the 70-200 f/4L IS.

User reviews & Review at the-digital-picture.com

Now to get rid of my 70-200 non-IS version...

MichiganRich · Nov 24, 2006, 12:46 AM

Niiiice lens. Versatile.

vinster · Nov 24, 2006, 12:54 AM

I like this lens better.

The venerable Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Heavier and more expensive, though.

jebjeb · Nov 24, 2006, 04:30 AM

Very nice, mate. I have the 70-200 F4 non-IS as well and it is a wonderful lense. Some of the best bokeh I've ever seen. Hopefully that is not lost in the IS version (I'm sure it's not).

I am off to Cambodia in a month for a wedding and am planning of doing quite a bit of photography. I am wondering what to get when I pass through Malaysia and am contemplating either a 5D body (I'm using a 10D at the moment) or a new long lense. I am leaning towards the lense as I think some big things are going to happen next year with Canon and more affordable full-frame bodies.

I initially thought of a Canon 100-400 to complement the 70-200 but I don't like the push-pull zoom and it is a bit slow.

I am now thinking of the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and tele-convertors after reading the reviews of it. Bloody fast (both in aperture and focusing), good price and great performance with the 1.4x tc and even the 2x tc. With a 1.4x tc on it becomes as 168-420 f4 and with a 2x tc it is a 240-600 f5.6! Full autofocus is retained and sharpness is still supposed to be great with either tc on.

I think this would complement the 70-200 f4 very well. It is so easy to start going through all the different options though. Should I go for the 100-400 as it is quite a bit lighter? What about the Sigma 100-300 f4? Of course there is the super sharp prime Canon 300 f4 IS and 400 f5.6? Why not just get the the 5D body and a slower lense and due to the much better ISO noise performance, I could get the extra stop or two though bumping up the ISO.

So many options!

Sorry for the thread hijack. Are you selling your old non IS 70-200?

Peter · Nov 24, 2006, 05:01 AM

why are the lenses white and yet the slrs are generally black?
Reflect sunlight?

jebjeb · Nov 24, 2006, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Peter

why are the lenses white and yet the slrs are generally black?
Reflect sunlight?

It is generally used on bigger lenses to keep them cooler (white reflects the heat better) which stops the optics from distorting slightly when they expand and contract due to temperature differentiations.

Only really required for the longer lenses thus why Canon only uses it on those rather than on there shorter L lenses.

Nikon has finally come around to this and is producing some lenses in a grey/white colour. Pentax has been doing it with their big suckers (medium format tele stuff) for a while as well.

Plus it just looks cool... yet it also screams "Steal me, I'm expensive!"

Eug · Nov 24, 2006, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by vinster

I like this lens better.

The venerable Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Heavier and more expensive, though.

Yeah, the reason I didn't get it is the size (and cost).

I don't shoot many "action" shots so I don't really need the f/2.8.

Originally Posted by jebjeb

I think this would complement the 70-200 f4 very well. It is so easy to start going through all the different options though. Should I go for the 100-400 as it is quite a bit lighter? What about the Sigma 100-300 f4? Of course there is the super sharp prime Canon 300 f4 IS and 400 f5.6? Why not just get the the 5D body and a slower lense and due to the much better ISO noise performance, I could get the extra stop or two though bumping up the ISO.

So many options!

Sorry for the thread hijack. Are you selling your old non IS 70-200?

Dunno much about the longer lenses. I used to just carry around the 70-200 plus a teleconverter. Now I'll carry around the 70-200 IS plus a teleconverter. Plus, my camera is a 20D anyway, which pseudo-magnifies the 200 mm distance to a fake 320.

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Plus it just looks cool... yet it also screams "Steal me, I'm expensive!"

No doubt. I'd rather my 70-200 be black. People instantly recognize my 70-200 as a "pro" lens. Actually, it's not so much about theft as strangers on vacation thinking I'm a real photographer and asking me take their pictures for them. I don't get asked as often when I carry black zooms.

OreoCookie · 09:03 AM

Well, an f-stop of 2.8 gives you a smaller depth of field, too -- which would be the reason, I'd even consider a used 2.8/70-200 … but for sure, you've made a good choice!

mdc · Nov 24, 2006, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

No doubt. I'd rather my 70-200 be black. People instantly recognize my 70-200 as a "pro" lens. Actually, it's not so much about theft as strangers on vacation thinking I'm a real photographer and asking me take their pictures for them. I don't get asked as often when I carry black zooms.

There's a way to pay off your vacation

Eug · Nov 24, 2006, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, an f-stop of 2.8 gives you a smaller depth of field, too -- which would be the reason, I'd even consider a used 2.8/70-200 …�but for sure, you've made a good choice!

True. f/4 is OK for reducing the depth of field, but f/2.8 is that much better.

The 2.8 70-200 is an awesome lens. (Both the IS and non-IS.) I just wish it didn't have to be so big.

powerbook867 · Nov 24, 2006, 09:04 AM

Holidays came early for you Eug! Great choice!

I did not realize the size difference was that significant. I have the 2.8 and I guess I'm just used to it...

OreoCookie · Nov 24, 2006, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

The 2.8 70-200 is an awesome lens. (Both the IS and non-IS.) I just wish it didn't have to be so big.

So it's really the size and weight that made you opt for the f4 instead?
(Although I haven't checked the prices, I surmise you can get a used f2.8 for a similar amount.)

Eug · Nov 24, 2006, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

So it's really the size and weight that made you opt for the f4 instead?
(Although I haven't checked the prices, I surmise you can get a used f2.8 for a similar amount.)

Price had a fair bit to do with it, but a huge reason is the size and weight.

f/4.0 IS: 76 x 172mm, 760g
f/2.8 IS: 86 x 197mm, 1470g

The f/2.8 IS weighs almost twice as much. Even the f/2.8 non-IS is over 1300 g.

OreoCookie · Nov 24, 2006, 09:42 AM

Phew, that's quite a lot. Especially since you need to add another 700 grams or so for the body …

Congrats on your new lens …

Goldfinger · Nov 24, 2006, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Nikon has finally come around to this and is producing some lenses in a grey/white colour. Pentax has been doing it with their big suckers (medium format tele stuff) for a while as well.

At least Nikon gives you the option to get a black version. That claimed effect that white paint has is highly theoretical AFAIK. You wouldn't notice any difference in reality.

It looks a bit stupid and "steal me" those white lenses.
But thei're not bad.. Not as good as the Nikkors though

Railroader · Nov 24, 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

At least Nikon gives you the option to get a black version. That claimed effect that white paint has is highly theoretical AFAIK. You wouldn't notice any difference in reality.

I disagree. I have a background in metallurgy, and I know a few degrees can expand or contract most metals a few thousandths of and inch and I would expect that to distort your final picture. Most machine shops have a soak/normalization cabinet where they put items that need to be inspected so they reach a standard temp for measurement.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Now to get rid of my 70-200 non-IS version...

How much are you asking?

GSixZero · Nov 24, 2006, 02:43 PM

Nice. I would have gone for the 2.8 IS personally, but I think you made a great choice!

I'm currently lusting after a 35L though.

OreoCookie · Nov 24, 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I disagree. I have a background in metallurgy, and I know a few degrees can expand or contract most metals a few thousandths of and inch and I would expect that to distort your final picture. Most machine shops have a soak/normalization cabinet where they put items that need to be inspected so they reach a standard temp for measurement.

I don't think there is disagreement about the physics here, but aren't lenses rated to function over a wide rage of temperatures … so changes in length due to thermal expansion has to be taken into account from the start.

Hence I would guess that the effect is negligible. However, if anyone knows evidence one way or the other … I'm a scientist after all

I always thought it's more of a `marketing thing': you can immediately recognize most professional Canon lenses this way.

Railroader · Nov 24, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think there is disagreement about the physics here, but aren't lenses rated to function over a wide rage of temperatures … so changes in length due to thermal expansion has to be taken into account from the start.

Hence I would guess that the effect is negligible. However, if anyone knows evidence one way or the other … I'm a scientist after all

I always thought it's more of a `marketing thing': you can immediately recognize most professional Canon lenses this way.

Temp changes are fine and probably taken into consideration by the focusing software.

However, sunlight does not heat the lenses evenly and one side will expand more than the other side. This will throw off the alignment of the optics.

OreoCookie · Nov 24, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Temp changes are fine and probably taken into consideration by the focusing software.

However, sunlight does not heat the lenses evenly and one side will expand more than the other side. This will throw off the alignment of the optics.

Even that is known since the very beginning of high-precision optics. So I would think that other companies (not all, but more than just Canon) had picked up on that years ago, too. My guess is that this has been taken into account during construction, making it a non-issue.

The physics is clear, but I'm still skeptical this temperature gradient has a discernable effect on the image quality. Perhaps I'll dig in the vastness of the web for a bit …

Railroader · Nov 24, 2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The physics is clear, but I'm still skeptical this temperature gradient has a discernable effect on the image quality. Perhaps I'll dig in the vastness of the web for a bit …

What is happening is that when sunlight hits one side of the lens then that side expands and throws the optics inside off. Even a tiny amount of expansion on one side when using a long focal length lens will throw off the optics enough to remove the crispness of the focus. The camera and lens have no way of compensating for this. It might be possible to use a similar technology as image stabilization, but it would greatly increase the electronics and hardware inside the lens, which don't have much room to spare as it is.

So they just paint the lenses a more light reflecting color and call it good.

GSixZero · Nov 24, 2006, 03:20 PM

I have the black canon 70-300 IS USM. Once while using it in the hot, midday, equatorial sun it stopped focusing. Even in manual focus, there was no position that would focus the image. I noticed the barrel was fairly hot so I stuck it in the shade for a few minutes and everything returned to normal. I'm guessing that one group of elements was out of position.

So in my experience, sunlight really does make a difference.

OreoCookie · Nov 24, 2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

What is happening is that when sunlight hits one side of the lens then that side expands and throws the optics inside off. Even a tiny amount of expansion on one side when using a long focal length lens will throw off the optics enough to remove the crispness of the focus. The camera and lens have no way of compensating for this. It might be possible to use a similar technology as image stabilization, but it would greatly increase the electronics and hardware inside the lens, which don't have much room to spare as it is.

Again, I don't disagree with you on the general physics here (I am a physicist after all). However, a few things after digging into some websites for a few minutes: there are usually two explanations which usually go side-by-side as to why most Canon lenses are white: (1) expansion not of the tube and the barrel, but of the lenses (there are claims (apparently also by Canon itself) that Canon's fluorite lenses are particularly susceptible to changes in temperature) and hence the white color. And (2) it's a marketing thing: you immediately recognize photographers with Canon lenses at big sports events.

To answer your other questions: I don't think it's not much of an issue that the different elements are getting `out of focus', especially if the changes in length are much smaller than the manufacturing tolerance. Also, from what I've read, it's not the thermal expansion of the barrel that's an issue, but the thermal expansion of the lenses … which actually would make much more sense -- if it was true. So, overall, I still tend to think it's a marketing ploy as other effects probably dominate.

Railroader · Nov 24, 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Again, I don't disagree with you on the general physics here (I am a physicist after all). However, a few things after digging into some websites for a few minutes: there are usually two explanations which usually go side-by-side as to why most Canon lenses are white: (1) expansion not of the tube and the barrel, but of the lenses (there are claims (apparently also by Canon itself) that Canon's fluorite lenses are particularly susceptible to changes in temperature) and hence the white color. And (2) it's a marketing thing: you immediately recognize photographers with Canon lenses at big sports events.

To answer your other questions: I don't think it's not much of an issue that the different elements are getting `out of focus', especially if the changes in length are much smaller than the manufacturing tolerance. Also, from what I've read, it's not the thermal expansion of the barrel that's an issue, but the thermal expansion of the lenses … which actually would make much more sense -- if it was true.

That makes sense.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

So, overall, I still tend to think it's a marketing ploy as other effects probably dominate.

This does not. Why in the world do you still think it's a marketing ploy? You just gave a perfectly good reason above and then came to a completely different conclusion.

OreoCookie · Nov 24, 2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

This does not. Why in the world do you still think it's a marketing ploy? You just gave a perfectly good reason above and then came to a completely different conclusion.

As I said, I've taken this from the web pages I've surfed (I've just googled a bit). Even the people who were stating reason (1) (reducing heat expansion) were often giving reason (2) as well.

Physics is about deciding which effects dominate in which regime. So even though I have given a plausible reason as to why Canon uses a white (they call it putty) finish, this still doesn't mean two things: that you will have noticeable changes in picture quality and (2) that Canon has an edge over Nikon.

Nikon (in an attempt of bad marketing) says that it won't use fluorite lenses, because they are brittle, have a different thermal expansion coefficient, etc. While the first one is probably FUD, the second one is the reason Canon is giving to its users as to why it uses a putty finish (which I think is probably a nice piece of marketing, too). If I were to take marketing speech to its word, Canon says, it's good to have a putty finish, since this means, they can use nice lenses with fluorite coating. Nikon says, we can make fine lenses without having to use fluorite, because fluorite lenses behave badly under changes in temperature.

MattJeff · Nov 24, 2006, 03:59 PM

im wanting to get one of those, just dont have the money. what did you pay for it?

Eug · 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by MattJeff

im wanting to get one of those, just dont have the money. what did you pay for it?

CAD$1415 (US$1250) for the Canada model including taxes and shipping.
That's the same price as BHPhoto's price for the imported model, before taxes and shipping.
We Canadians get a break for once.

I should get it next week. w00t!

Eug Wanker · Nov 27, 2006, 06:29 PM

Got it and it friggin rocks!

Suddenly a shutter speed of 1/30 sec is feasible handheld for relatively long shots on a 1.6X crop camera. You can even see the vibrations disappear right in the viewfinder.

Impressive.

GSixZero · Nov 27, 2006, 06:46 PM

IS is amazing. I have the 70-300 IS USM, and I love it.

Just wish it were faster. :-/

Eug Wanker · Nov 27, 2006, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by GSixZero

IS is amazing. I have the 70-300 IS USM, and I love it.

Just wish it were faster. :-/

What camera, and what do you feel is a reasonable handholdable shutter speed at say 135 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm?

tie · Nov 27, 2006, 08:02 PM

If I ever bought this, Canon would come out with in-camera IS the next week -- that's just my luck. :shrug:

.. If you'd like to hasten my purchase, I'm accepting donations.

Scifience · Nov 27, 2006, 09:06 PM

I just got my first DSLR (a Sony A100 in case anyone was interested, got it for $200 new - long story). I'm happy with my $500 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 lens for now. The image stabilization is built into the camera (the CCD is moved to compensate for those with a less-than-stead hand).

The optics on this one are probably a bit better, though.

Dr Reducto · Nov 27, 2006, 11:17 PM

Nikon says, we can make fine lenses without having to use fluorite, because fluorite lenses behave badly under changes in temperature.

Nikon's ED glss is a lot more resilient than Canon's flourite elements. This is also why NASA uses Nikon gear for shuttles, since the flourite was too brittle to survive the vibrations.

Although the flourite elements Canon uses now are much better in terms of durability and expansion, it became convention from the first generation of flourite based lenses