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

about | support

This lens has been fantastic to use. I have used it for about a month now and I have no complaints whatsoever. A fabulous lens.

I wish if the DOF can be shallower, but this is limited by its F4 aperture.

Heard about this legendary lens and was browsing through this review site. Was thinking" How can this be true? How can a zoom lens be this optically perfect?"

I am a 5D user and my 24-105mmL F4 IS was mounted on my camera all the time. At the point of purchase, the 24-105mm L was all the lens I have wanted. My copy was perfect, sharp from F4 onwards. I do not fancy bringing alot of equipment out and changing lens. I was very happy with it for it is giving me very good image quality for 95% of the range I always shoot.

While I was browsing the net for technical stuffs, reviews of 70-200mm F4 kept popping up and it slowly grabbed my attention. There are too many fantastic reviews on this lens and there must be really something abt it.

Although it is not a range I often use, I finally took the plunge, just to see it for myself. And I must say that this lens is as good as the reviews said them to be!!!

The sharpness, colour and contrast is simply fantastic! My copy is sharp from F4 onwards, and there is no discernable difference closing down. I have no hesitation using F4 all the time, except when situations where more DOF is required. The image quality, (sadly to me), brings my 24-105mm L to shame. The difference can be viewed through the LCD, and to me, that is obvious. It makes me suspect if my 24-105 is a bad copy! I still like the 24-105mm for the range it covers, but clearly there are of a different league.

After acquiring this lens, I notice that I am mounting it more, and are taking pictures out of my usual range.

With regards to the built, I think Canon has done a great job. It is the perfect enbodiment of built and weight. The lens is very light in my opinion and yet is of excellent built. Any better built, it will have to be heavier. The zoom is buttery smooth and AF is very quick.

About the IS.... I think I can't live without it. It has allowed me to take photos of situations technically impossible before. The IS in this lens is also better than that of the 24-105mm. For the style of photography I do, IS is a dream. It allows me to keep shooting while others have to pack their gear. I would strongly encourage anyone to consider the IS version. Although it is much pricier, it is still worth the difference. Ask yourself, how many times is your shutter speed below 1/30th of a second and you can't have a reasonably sharp shot? With IS, you CAN!!! How I wish all lens come with IS.

I also notice I have been shooting at 200mm F4 alot of the times, because I prefer the perspective and bokeh. I do wish for the DOF to be shallower, but this is inherent in an F4 lens. Planning to get the EF 100mm F2 next. (not no IS!)

Summary: This lens is as good as they said! If the range is useful for you and F4 aperture does not pose a problem, do not hesitate. Don't forget to get the IS version.

With the 40D (fast AF, 6.5fps): the combo delivers very good in tracking moving subjects (perfect would be with the 1DMKIII I think):

http://www.svenrose.smugmug.com/gallery/3770556

http://svenrose.smugmug.com/gallery/3610712

http://svenrose.smugmug.com/gallery/3658430#P-3-15

Canon don’t have 67mm Close-Up lens for this zoom, you have no choice but to use Extension tubes (inherent light loss) for macro work.

In 25 years of photography, this is the finest lens I have owned to date. It is exceptional and, for what it gives me, I don't regard it as being overpriced.

I upgraded from the non-IS version purely for the benefit of IS, not expecting a great improvement in image quality, but whatever Canon has done with the lens coatings, or such, the improvement in the areas of contrast, colour and sharpness are quite noticeable.

I can carry this lens around with me all day, along with a 1.6x crop body and a 17-40mm and not suffer any backache as I do if I also take along my 300mm F4 L IS.

The 17-40mm and the 70-200mm F4 L IS are sufficient for almost all my needs. If I think I might need a little more reach I use the Canon Extender 1.4x II which is light and works well with the 70-200 although focusing with this combination on my 10D isn't as consistent compared to using the lens without the converter.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_70-200F4LIS.html

None really...see I can't say that it needs a lot of light or is poor indoors, because that's what the 2.8 and double the cost if for.

I will do as many others have done and that's use this as a beginner/break-in zoom until I'm ready for the IS and/or F2.8 versions.

I have sample shots with this lens under the Gallery Folder called Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L here: http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/

Lex

very VERY amazingly sharp wide open and from corner to corner. IQ couldn't be better. Expensive but worth the price.
The IS is the best of any IS lens I ever tried, four f/stop for handheld shots is real and I do not have the steadiest of hands.
Highly recommended for anybody who is looking for a lightweight, very high performance tele-zoom.

Focus tends to hunt in low light. Noisy IS. Tripod ring should be given as a standard accessory, not to be sold separately.

I can not think of anything to complain about other than the price.

not wild about the big hood

This is an update to my prior rave review. I have now tried it with a 1.4xTC and am amazed at how good the IQ remains. I am so haqppy with it that I may sell my 100-400 which is sharp only up to 300 anyway and does not do well with a TC.

You seem to need long fingernails to get the lens cap of.

No tripod ring - IS a little noisy

I own this lens for 6 months now and I am really happy with this purchase. I use it for portrait, landscape abstract and wildlife (with or without 1.4x). I was looking for "portability" and I am impressed by the result. Most of the pics from it are great...if only I purchased it earlier :-).
I rate it 7 beacuse I found a little bit $$$ to move from the non-IS to the IS (almost the double)

Some issues with MFD and 200 mm

This is the follow up to my previous review in which I rated the lens relatively low (8). I have checked three copies of this lens and kept the third, although they were all practically the same. I have done some extensive shooting with the lens and I think that it is very, very good. I have been practically using it all the time and I would increase my rating to 9.8, if I could.
The issue, that I focused on in my previous review, remains. The lens is less sharp at 200 mm and MFD (1.2 m). I use it either up to 170 mm, if I need to shoot at MFD or increase my focusing distance to at least 2.5 m, if I need 200 mm. I am talking about achieving prime like sharpness. With this exception, the lens is "perfect".
Those who rate it below 9 (me included), do not know what they are talking about. To give it "5", because the copy may be defective, is completely ridiculous and a person doing this should be banned.

I begin this review of the 70-200/4 IS by admitting that I didn’t use my 70-200/4L (non-IS) very often on my 1.6x DSLR. While I was impressed with the optical performance of the zoom, I typically found myself at 200mm and wanting a bit more speed. So unless I knew I was going to need the 200mm reach, I wasn’t reaching for the zoom. I sold the 70-200/4 and purchased a 200/2.8L. For most purposes, I was content with the 200L prime – a great lens if you need the 200mm focal length. But, I wasn’t completely satisfied.

Landscape photography is one key area where I missed the flexibility of the zoom. While I often use the 200L in the field, I found myself wishing for the ability to zoom out to a wider focal length. I purchased a 28-135 IS and while this lens was plenty sharp when stopped down, I was often using it between 70-135mm and it was not as sharp as my primes, or perhaps more telling, the 70-200/4L I used to own. I started to think more seriously about purchasing another 70-200L. Canon currently offers plenty of options.

The f/2.8 versions of the 70-200 are too large and heavy for my purposes. Simply put, I don’t like carrying large lenses. Plus, I already have the 200L, along with some other shorter and faster prime telephoto lenses; an f/4 zoom suits my needs perfectly. I originally planned to re-purchase the non-IS version of the 70-200/4. But, reviews of the f/4 IS caught my attention, and I realized that this lens was something I should consider more seriously. I sold my 28-135 and purchased the 70-200/4 IS.

My initial impressions of the lens have been quite favorable. Not surprisingly, the lens handles much like the non-IS f/4 version. The optical performance appears to be very similar as well – this is a sharp zoom. Since I don’t own the non-IS version, I cannot do a side-by-side test; I have, however, tested the IS f/4 against my 200L prime. My 200L is perhaps a bit sharper at comparable apertures, but any modest differences would not likely be seen in prints, and other variables like lighting, composition, subject movement, etc. are much more likely to produce discernable differences in real-world (non-test) situations. I was somewhat surprised to note, as others have reported, that when used on a 30D, the center performance of the f/4 IS does not improve when stopped down; the lens is as sharp at f/8 as it is at f/4. I’m intrigued to know if stopping the lens down would improve performance on a full-frame DSLR.

To date, I haven’t had the opportunity to use the IS on this lens extensively, however my initial explorations suggest that I gain a 2-3-stop improvement. That said, I am fairly critical about sharpness, and I note that my best photographs still come when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I recently purchased the optional tripod mount because I expect to use this lens on a tripod quite a bit. Although the tripod mount is well constructed and works well, it is kind of pricey for what you get. Nevertheless, I highly recommend the tripod mount if you plan to use the lens on a tripod. Does this mean that the extra cost of the IS wasn’t worth it in my case? Perhaps, but I do anticipate using this lens hand-held, and my experiments suggest that IS certainly can help still an unsteady hand.

I have seen reports that the 70-200/4 IS cannot produce sharp images at the minimum focus distance and 200mm. I only have experience with my lens, but my forays into the garden with the zoom suggest accurate focus. Perhaps most importantly for my landscape and event photography, the lens performs quite well when focused on far away objects.

Here are a few examples of images (on a 30D):

http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/82512557

http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/82917018

http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/83309210

In sum, I highly recommend the 70-200/4 IS. If you find the price a bit steep, I wouldn’t hesitate to get the f/4 non-IS (and carry a sturdy tripod if you often encounter low light).