NCAndy wrote:
I've never found the bokeh of the F4IS to be objectionable. Nor have I found it soft or low in contrast at longer focal lengths near mdf. I think it is a stellar lens.
The quality of bokeh is greatly affected by the nature of the background. Here's a thread I posted about the funky bokeh on my f/4L IS, which is exacerbated by the addition of an EF 1.4x Extender (Mk I), https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/948575
I've also compared bokeh from the 70-200mm f/4L IS without extender, with the f/2.8L IS Mk I and II, Mamiya A 200/2.8 APO, Leica Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4, and Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4. In terms of 'quality, or personal preference, bokeh of the Canon f/4 L IS and APO Lanthar lag far behind the f/2.8's. The Apo-Telyt is in between. YMMV.
eskimochaos wrote:
Isn't IQ everything?
Nope. There are always tradeoffs between IQ ( however we measure this ) cost, weight, bulk, speed etc... Whenever we make decisions, I am sure we weigh these tradeoffs before purchasing.
I rarely pump the praise for any lens. I dumped my 70-200v1 in favor of the 70-200 f/4 when the f/4 first came out. Besides one stop slower, I felt the f/4 was at least on level playing grounds and decided to save the $ss. Just received the 70-200v2 today in fact to try out and IMHO it's well worth the premium over the f/4 now. Much sharper and better on the long end. Thrilled will it at first glance and well worth my $ and toting it around (it's not small of course like the f/4).
In terms of overall IQ I've ranked the lenses as: MKII > drainpipe > f4 > MKI. The MKII is really stellar. The first time I used one it was CLEARLY the best white zoom Canon had produced. It was not subtle.
erikburd wrote:
I bought the f/4 IS because of weight and price. It makes a difference when lugging lenses on the trails over a day or two. You will only see significant image quality differences with the f/2.8 lens if you pixel peep.
I use my 135L when I really need a fast aperture.
good point
