OK, image 2001 represents my silly interpretation of bokeh. This is a purely arbitrary subject at about 10 feet with background sun speckled sagebrush at about 50 feet.
Sandy.
Thanks all and especially sandycrane for all the remarks about the new lens. It seems up to the expectations I had that it would be in the same class as the non IS f/4. I will still look forward for more data in this thread
Yes, it's weather-sealed. And no, the IS noise is not "loud". It sounds more like a mechanical clock winding down that's muffled under a pillow. It's really only audible to the photographer, but if that's a problem get the non-IS version... it's a free country. I have a few photo samples with the 70-200 f4L IS in the FM Review.
Where it differs optically from the non-IS version is that it seems to be evenly corrected for focus from edge-to-edge. Canon has basically eliminated color fringing, something that is present on a quite a few EF primes at the wide open apertures. This lens has a perfect circular barrel appearance which creates even background blur. You can see this kind of optical correction in a lot of Hollywood movies focusing on tight shots of the subject - highlights become nice round circles.
I like it, but it's expensive. Can you do without it? Sure. There is nothing wrong with the non-IS version. If you shoot landscape (tripod), or it's hooked up to studio strobes there really isn't a pressing need to get one. I would recommend the Canon tripod/lens ring adapter instead. Without it this type of lens is prone to nose dive in the vertical position on a tripod.
It seems you are in a unique position to really help those of us who are considering the new version of the 70 - 200mm f/4L (I have the non-IS f/4L). It seems the new verson has an improved (and strenghtened?) IS system. Since you have all 3 models, can you perhaps try a similar shot with the 2.8 L IS versus the 4L IS, for my question is this: is the extra stop worth the extra weight and cost, and is the new IS version so much superior to the 2.8 IS (which I calculafe is now 3 years old) that one could benefit from the new f/4 IS over the 2.8 IS because of the new IS. Thanks and looking forward to your comparisons.
Joe Tiemann (Reinheim)
My lens is scheduled to come tomorrow but I have a huge deadline for Nov 1. I will take some shots and report back soon thereafter. I plan on selling my non IS version after the test.
Reinheim wrote:
Hi, Mark,
It seems you are in a unique position to really help those of us who are considering the new version of the 70 - 200mm f/4L (I have the non-IS f/4L). It seems the new verson has an improved (and strenghtened?) IS system. Since you have all 3 models, can you perhaps try a similar shot with the 2.8 L IS versus the 4L IS, for my question is this: is the extra stop worth the extra weight and cost, and is the new IS version so much superior to the 2.8 IS (which I calculafe is now 3 years old) that one could benefit from the new f/4 IS over the 2.8 IS because of the new IS. Thanks and looking forward to your comparisons.
Joe Tiemann (Reinheim)...Show more →
How does the far corner vignetting of the 70-200/4 IS compare to the 70-200/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 on the 1Ds MK II? That is my main complaint about the three previous lenses.
I got my lens and at lunch did a few quick test comparisons between the IS and non IS version with the 5D. Here are my conclusions so far
1) Optically on a tripod the two are very similar. There may be a very tad advantage to the IS version with sharpness in the corners. The differences are slight. Colors and contrast are very close.
2) Both have some vignetting shooting a sky.
3) The IS version gave me sharp images at 200mm 1/25sec. At least 3 stops advantage when handholding.
One thing that was strange. On my new lens there is a very fine line or seam like on the barrel near where the lens mounts to the camera. It does not seem to be a crack or anything of issue except not present on my non IS lens.
Mark,
I see that seam also, must be part of the design. I really like the IS and it is really amazing. I do notice a sound difference compared to the 24-105, its not really louder just maybe can hear the little gyros spinning a bit more. here one I snapped at work 200mm and 1/10 sec f6.3 handheld.
I compared a sky shot IS and non IS f4 version and the vignetting is there and similar between the two lenses
EB-1 wrote:
How does the far corner vignetting of the 70-200/4 IS compare to the 70-200/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 on the 1Ds MK II? That is my main complaint about the three previous lenses.
