"Conclusions
It isn't easy to improve on an almost flawless lens like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, unless you add 4-stop Image Stabilization without degrading any of the optical or build qualities. This lens tests and performs as well, or better than, any lens tested recently. It is quite sharp across its entire aperture-focal length spectrum; chromatic aberration, vignetting, and distortion are all quite reasonable; focusing is fast and accurate; the build is L-class; and the new 4-stop image stabilization is downright startling in its effectiveness. The only downside may be the price, which breaks the kilo-buck barrier and is almost double that of the non-IS version. Despite the hefty price though, we expect a lot of non-IS owners will be selling their lenses to upgrade to the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS -- it's that good. (This might mean that we'll see some of the non-IS models appearing on the used market, which would make that model even more of a bargain.) Very few medicines cure "shaky hands" - this one does, and with fantastic optical quality as well!"
p.1 #2 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
I don't agree that the price is a downside. This lens is one of the best values in L glass. Reviewers should really stop milking the obvious "too expensive - wish it were cheaper" angle. It's too easy to complain about the price without doing a real comparison between competitive products and their price points.
p.1 #3 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
The reviews are true! The 70-200mm f/4 IS is an awesome lens. On my 1.6x crop body it is on par with my 500mm f/4. This is one of the very best telephoto lenses. Hopefully it is an indication of what's to come from Canon...
p.1 #6 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
For many photographers (myself included) the speed of the 70-200/4L is more than enough for its intended purpose. If I need something faster I use the 135/2L, which is two full stops faster than the f/4L and one full stop faster than the 70-200/2.8L.
It's nice that the f/4L lenses are slightly sharper and deliver slightly better contrast than the f/2.8L lenses do. Also much lighter and less bulky.
p.1 #7 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
moondigger wrote:
For many photographers (myself included) the speed of the 70-200/4L is more than enough for its intended purpose. If I need something faster I use the 135/2L, which is two full stops faster than the f/4L and one full stop faster than the 70-200/2.8L.
It's nice that the f/4L lenses are slightly sharper and deliver slightly better contrast than the f/2.8L lenses do. Also much lighter and less bulky.
This talk about sharpness is overblown. I have tested this F4IS and two F/2.8`s before I bought mine - and the result wasnīt visible on lager prints. I couldn*t tell the difference. So in real world shooting - not al all. So if any difference then it might be very minor.
But there is a weight and price advangtage in favour of the f/4IS. BUT I find the f/2.8 IS to be a more versatile lens than the others covering more photographic categories. And donīt forget with f/2.8 autofocus will be more accurate because of double amount of light, Newer cameras can benefit of that..
p.1 #8 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
The sharpness issue is not overblown. I tested three of the four 70-200L lenses side by side, and there were slight but definitely noticeable differences in sharpness and contrast between them, with the f/4L bettering both f/2.8 versions at equivalent apertures. (Yes, the f/4L was slightly better wide open at f/4 than the f/2.8 lenses were stopped down one stop at f/4.)
As for AF accuracy, I've never had trouble with the f/4 lens. But when the light is very low and activating the cross sensor requires a fast aperture, the 135/2L manages it well.
The f/2.8 zooms are invaluable to some photographers, but personally I consider them to be compromise choices. They try to do everything -- (relatively) fast apertures and the flexibility of a zoom, at the expense of bulk and weight. But they're neither as fast as the f/2 primes nor as lightweight and easy to pack as the f/4 zooms. Even if the image quality was identical across the entire lot of lenses, I'd still prefer the smaller, lighter, and faster choices. To each his own.
p.1 #9 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
moondigger wrote:
The sharpness issue is not overblown. I tested three of the four 70-200L lenses side by side, and there were slight but definitely noticeable differences in sharpness and contrast between them, with the f/4L bettering both f/2.8 versions at equivalent apertures. (Yes, the f/4L was slightly better wide open at f/4 than the f/2.8 lenses were stopped down one stop at f/4.)
As for AF accuracy, I've never had trouble with the f/4 lens. But when the light is very low and activating the cross sensor requires a fast aperture, the 135/2L manages it well.
The f/2.8 zooms are invaluable to some photographers, but personally I consider them to be compromise choices. They try to do everything -- (relatively) fast apertures and the flexibility of a zoom, at the expense of bulk and weight. But they're neither as fast as the f/2 primes nor as lightweight and easy to pack as the f/4 zooms. Even if the image quality was identical across the entire lot of lenses, I'd still prefer the smaller, lighter, and faster choices. To each his own....Show more →
You are speaking as if I did buy foolish.
I can only speak of my own experiences from my testing. And there were in my opinion no visible sharpness differences, if any at all then not visible on a large print., and I am considering myselft to be a pixelpeeper.
With an f/2.8 IS lens I donīt have to change lenses all time - I feel I can handle almost every situation with excellent result with this zoom. The copy of the f/2.8IS ,which I chose ,was just as sharp as the f/4 IS version, which I tried. I did only try this f/4 IS version because I had been reading so splendid reports of this lens and because of my pixelpeeping, so if sharpness was better, then I would consider this lens seriously - but the sharpness advantage wasnīt visible for me. My copy of the f/2.8 IS is also very sharp, even wide open, but on the other hand why should my copy be much sharper than other f/2.8 IS lenses?
I think we all have different taste, and we are all shooting different applications, but for me an f/4 lens would be almost useless in a lot of cases.
I am shooting a lot of sports and actions and I couldnīt live with f/4. I have tried to shoot a horse riding tournament in dim light with an f/4 lens. I did not have the same rate of keepers as usual. And if you have to pump ISO value with the f/4 lens - then the sharpness is really gone!!
SPEED and LIGHT are factors, which count for me. When the light is really dim - then I do have my EF 85 f/1.8, but it is not often that I use it.
I think that I will always prefer the f/2.8 lens, so for me this comparison doesnīt really make any sense.
Edited by websurfer on May 01, 2007 at 09:22 AM GMT
p.1 #10 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
ishmaiel wrote:
I don't agree that the price is a downside. This lens is one of the best values in L glass. Reviewers should really stop milking the obvious "too expensive - wish it were cheaper" angle. It's too easy to complain about the price without doing a real comparison between competitive products and their price points.
Its a $600 premium for the IS!!! That is beyond too much. I could see $400 at most
p.1 #11 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
For some one reason this lens gets under the skin of the f/2.8 owners. Everytime someone posts about how great the new f/4 IS is, an f/2.8 owner jumps to it's defense, even when no comparison of the f/4 to the f/2.8 was made..
No one is saying the f/2.8 is not very good. When you need that extra stop it has it. However if you don't need that stop, shoot outdoors, or static objects indoors, you can choose the smaller, lighter, $600 cheaper, sharper at f/4, 1 stop better IS, 70-200mm f/4 IS..
p.1 #12 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
Having had multiple copies of all 4 versions, I'm staying with the f4 IS and f2.8 IS.
For action/low light needs...out comes the 2.8, otherwise the f4 gets the call. The
wide open IQ continues to amaze and impress, being 1/2 the weight is the icing.
p.1 #13 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
I tried a couple of 70-300 DO's - didn't like them. Bought a 70-200 F4 but sold it solely to get the IS on its big brother. Now, when I eventually get around to it, I'll be selling my much beloved 70-200 2.8 IS and going "backward" as my dealer tells me to pick up the F4 IS. Had the 70-200 F4 been available originally I could have saved myself a lot of time, aggravation and lost money by buying it in the first place.
Why would I do something as stupid as selling a stellar zoom? I almost never use 2.8. I never had a focusing problem with the F4. The weight savings is nice but more importantly, it will fit better in my Slingshot 200 and make traveling much nicer. I'll probably pick up a 1DMkIII and the total weight will be about the same as what I am carrying now with the 20D and the 2.8. Strikes me as a pretty sweet combo.
p.1 #14 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
Well, I have the 2.8 IS and decided to replace it with f/4 IS and 135/2. I am very happy with the performace of my 2.8 IS and realy don't wish for anything better. That said, if it is, I will not complain...
p.1 #15 · SLRgear test: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
I have both versions of the f/4 and there is no doubt that the IS version is better. I've gone a different route - preferring primes for fast tele in low light. For that, the 135 f/2 is terrific and it loses nothing that I can see without some serious pixel peeping (and then it is really really hard) when a 1.4 TC is added to the mix.
Bottom line for me - f/4 with IS for outdoors, fast primes indoors. Keeps the bulk down and works great.
The 70-200 f/4L IS is really quite a lens for sure. Very sharp, nice color and nice contrast. The IS is quite surprising in how good it is. I had qualms about teh $500 premium for IS, but that was until I used it. Really quite something - this lens is a big winner.
I'd like to see Canon work over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and add this level of IS to it, sharpen it up a bit. From the lenses that are coming out now, I think one can see the improvement in computer simulation tools. I think the 70-200 f/2.8 could benefit from that.
