admin

Time was when film compacts had to have a swirl and a curve in the design. They didn’t appeal to me. As far as I was concerned they were old fashioned and didn’t do anything to enhance the functionality of the camera. Here’s a Nikon with a curve to show you what I mean. I wanted to be a serious photographer, and curves that didn’t do anything didn’t seem serious.

High End Film Cameras

What I said about curves only applied to point and shoot compacts. High end cameras didn’t look like that. In fact you could tell they were high end just by the look of them, like this Contax.

Digital

When digital cameras came out, the whole idea of digital was that they were functional and so the designs were much more minimalist and straight lines. Like this Canon. The only nod to the old is the slight curve at the end of the body.

Except Mju

What I said is mostly true, and some curvy cameras were a lot worse than the Nikon. But one film camera that was kind of curvy but still looked good was the Olympus Mju II. Olympus were known for svelte design. And somehow despite the curve, the camera looked the business.

I owned one at one time, but before I got to own one I had a go at owning one that didn’t come off. What happened was this.

I didn’t set out to buy an Olympus Mju II. But I was in New York, on Broadway and looking in camera shops. The store was narrow and deep with a counter running all down the left side. Maybe I asked for a Mju II or maybe the conversation went in that direction. Whichever it was the man got one out and I looked it over. Did I start to haggle or did he just start to come down in price to see at what price I would bite?

It was obvious to me and to him that I was hesitating, and then the price got crazy low. I didn’t know how to ask him without offending him. But this was Broadway, known for cheap goods and probably a lot of knock-offs and fake brands. So I approached the subject in what I hoped was the gentlest of ways. With the price being so low, I asked, do you think there is any possibility that this is not a genuine Olympus?

He didn’t answer me. He just picked up the camera and threw it down the length of the counter to the back of the shop. It was a long throw and he plainly didn’t care whether the camera survived.

I was shocked, disappointed, relieved. My bargain had slipped away. But would it have been a bargain? Now I didn’t have to think about it.

I am English and I was a tourist in New York. The man who served me was maybe Iranian or Iraqi or Egyptian and so his behaviour wasn’t as unexpected as it would have been if he had been from Middle England.

He didn’t order me out of the shop or any anything like that, but I felt my time in the shop was up. I kind of admired the man for not giving a sh*t about offending customers. And then I was out of the shop and laughing.

And to round out this look at curves, here I just one more photo of a curved design in a film camera, this time the Tronic MiniCam KH35. Look at the bump at the end at the top, as though they couldn’t fit the flash in so they added a bit on the corner like an afterthought. This is not a camera that is asking to be taken seriously.

Comparing the specifications of three iterations of the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 lens

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

• Release Date September 1999
• Image Stabilization (IS) None
• Optical Construction 16 elements in 13 groups
• Minimum Focusing Distance 1.2 meters
• Maximum Magnification 0.21x
• Aperture Blades 8
• Filter Diameter 67mm
• Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
• Weight 705g
• Additional Features Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for autofocus; no weather sealing.

EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

• Release date November 2006
• Image stabilisation up to 4 stops
• Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups
• Minimum focusing distance 1.2 meters
• Maximum magnification 0.21x
• Aperture blades 8
• Filter diameter 67mm
• Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
• Weight 760g
• Ring-type USM for autofocus
• Weather-sealed construction.

EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM

• Release date June 2018
• Image stabilization up to 5 stops
• Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups, including 1 fluorite and 2 UD elements
• Minimum focusing distance 1.0 meter
• Maximum magnification 0.27x
• Aperture blades 9
• Filter diameter 72mm
• Dimensions (diameter x length) 80mm x 176mm
• Weight 780g
• Enhanced weather sealing
• Improved autofocus with a new CPU
• Fluorine coatings on front and rear elements

So if we are looking at just the second two iterations, then how much better is the latest version compared to the previous version?

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM has a 5-stop Image stabiliser with three modes: a mode for general stabilisation for still subjects; a mode for panning; and a mode that activates stabilisation only during the shot. The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has a 3-stop image stabiliser with two modes: one for general stabilisation and one for panning.

If I am looking at the lens for use on a Canon EOS R6 or any of the R cameras with in-body image stabilisation, it is on all the time in the camera, so whether it is on on the lens only during the shot seems a redundant consideration.

So then the question is only whether the Mk II lens has better autofocus. How to find out? If it is better, how much better? From reading several reviews I think the difference is not that great.

To get back to the camera I would be using, the obvious question is why not go for the RF mount version. It weighs 695g, so that isn’t enough to sway me one way or the other.

It comes down to money. The Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is £1,600 new.

A new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is about the same price. but a second hand lens from a reputable dealer sells for about £650.

It’s even more dramatic with the earlier EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. It is only available used because it is no longer made, and from a reputable dealer it is about £375.

Of course I would have to buy an EF to RF adapter, which are £119 new at the moment., so add that to the cost.

But if I opt for the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM then I am looking at no more than £500 overall compared to £1,600 for the RF lens – a third of the cost.

If I was buying a workhorse lens and I knew I would be using it for a long time, then maybe I would go for the RF lens. But for an experiment in working with a long lens on full frame it’s a good option.

Alternatives

To muddy the water, Ken Rockwell thinks the Canon 70-300mm IS II is a better lens because it focuses faster (actually instantly), zooms 50% longer and only costs half as much. The 70-300 is also a little lighter and a little shorter.

Ot I could call it a day with Canon and buy a Nikon.