When I use my 70-200 f/4 IS L magic happens. It's beautifully sharp. I use it with my Canon 6D whose sensor adds a beautiful quality to it. I honestly think it's a magic combination. The 6D is the most underrated of cameras.
I have the IS version of the f/4 paired with the 6D mark ii and I love it. My last setup before I took a break from shooting was a 5D mark IV with the 2.8 IS version ii, and the setup I have now really isn’t much of a difference.
The original 70-200 F/4.0 NON IS lens was my ‘first’ L glass, and I had saved up for it for a long time. I really thought I had something, and I did. It was a sweetheart of a lens, and image quality was very good. I have since upgraded to the newest IS Version, same F stop, and that new lens is spectacular, and even works well adapted to R series cameras. The original lens is kept in the family, as my Daughter in law shoots Canon, and receives my ‘hand me downs!’ Happy Shooting! Oh, BTW, the original lens is quite good at wide open, but really shines stopped down to F/4.5 or 5.0, and especially at 5.6. No need to go further, other than DOF.
It works extremely well (including fast, accurate autofocus) adapted onto a sony A7R2 mirrorless camera with sigma MC-11 and it does have prime level image quality.
I have just bought this lens. I was dismayed when I found I hadn't bought the IS version. Then I began thinking about the sort of pictures I take and how often I would need the IS, I concluded that it wasn't really necessary at this time. So This video was a big boost, many thanks.
Good information for me. I'm looking at some of these Canon 70 - 200mm L lenses on the secondhand market, trying to decide whether I should get an f/4 (about $400) an f/4 IS (about $600) or an f/2.8 (about $800). After watching this, I'm thinking the f/4 would suit me just fine, and it would save a few hundred dollars toward getting a new body in a few months. Liked and subbed.
Was looking at a cheap 135mm for portraits. Came across one of these online and decided that it would be a better option. €250 second hand was a good deal to me. Yes its really old. I did also had doubts about the lack of IS. But the IS version goes for at least €400. But as my camera body is quite old and entry level. (550D) I know it is not the best a high ISO. Took it out today and i have never shot better portraits in my life. Also the lens is quite lightweight. Wich is a great bonus. Yes i noticed that IS would be nice. But for a hobbyist, this is awesome for a great price. The sharpness is just something else man.
The truth is in this video. Good presentation. With the EF 70-200mm f/4L You can do excellent results. I have used this lens since 2013 and was my first L lens that I bought new. There are guys with 100k€ gear and they don't even know how to use them. Photography is all about the human behind the shutter button. We don't need IS. In fact its so easy with the little L when You put it on a tripod. You never have to think about to switch off the IS. The sharpness of the lens is good, specially on a full frame Canon 5, 6 ja 1DX series. All Canon L lenses are designed to be used on a full frame body, but they do work on APS-C and H(1DMIV) too. But You will see that the sharpness is way off the one with FF sensors.
Great review! I have this lens for more than 10 years and the f2.8 version one, but have used this one (f4) more than the f2.8 lens because the f2.8 lens weights too much.
I own this 70 200 f4 lens and the photos taken with this lens are in my opinion of a fantastic rendering, some professional photographers have told me about it that this lens without is is even sharper than the version with i.s.
I'm so glad to hear somebody talk about using a deeper depth of field in photography. Back in the manual focus film days, we shot weddings at f8 to be sure the bride and groom were in focus. I was taught how to isolate the subject with composition rather than shallow depth of field, which I feel is a skill that is lost today. My main lens is a 24-105 f4, and I am going to buy a 70-200 f4 to keep on my second body. I had the 70-200 f2.8, but I never used it because I didn't want to lug it around all day. If/when I need a shallow depth of field, I have a handful of wide-aperture primes ranging from 35mm to 135mm (I'll never sell my 135 f2!!), but I prefer to shoot at f4 when I can to keep the faces in focus. Thanks for posting!
Update: Since I commented 6 months ago, I bought the non-IS version and loved it so much, I bought the newer IS version for a back up (I'm sometimes in precarious situations with my cameras). Both copies are amazingly sharp, even wide open, and they are plenty fast at f4 on modern cameras. If I need longer reach, I use this lens with a 1.4 teleconverter on my 90D (crop frame sensor), so then it's effectively a 156-448 f5.6. One thing I've noticed is there isn't much difference between f2.8 and f4 in real world applications, but the f4 version is substantially lighter. After I did a 7 day shoot for 12 hours a day earlier this year, I really appreciated the lighter camera/lens combination. And to be honest, I haven't seen a HUGE difference between the IS and Non-IS version.
I really enjoyed this video, and the way you come across. I subscribed! Your a down to earth kind'a guy....lol. I might get one of these for my wife this Christmas. It's used, but in excellent condition and it has IS. Thanks again and God bless....
A very good, no nonsense review. I have just bought a second-hand 70-200mm f4 IS USM, I decided the f2.8 was bulkier and heavier and the f4 was more for my needs. It's seemed to me that from the reviews of the new Mark II version (which would have been more than I could afford) basically mostly benefited those those taking video. This must be the first "L" lens to buy for the serious enthusiast.
I have this lens and chose it for all the same reasons - but one note - I have used the f/2.8 version and it is a better build but it should be since it's 3x the cost and 2x the weight - it's not always about max aperture though. - it's about how good the lens is at other apertures - I think the f/2.8 at f/5.6 looked a little bit better than the f/4 at f/5.6, but unless you saw the images side by side, who cares... the big thing for me was the weight - not sure I could shoot for 2 hrs with the f/2.8 version handheld these days... this f/4 weights about the same as my 24-70 f/4L so it's not gonna break your hand after a while lol Im toying with buying the newer v2 of this one since it does have 3 levels of IS... Im mostly a prime lens guy... since nothing compares to some of canon's primes... the 50 f/1.2 for example... but for a decent zoom lens, you can't beat it esp used - I think I saw one just now for like $350! - that's a steal for this build and quality.
Excellent. Picked up this lens--will mainly be using it indoors for portraits and short films. All on tripods. Recently ordered a 2 times extender. Figure it'll be fine because I have control of the light. Unlike you(in some instances)--I will use this FOR it's shallow depth of field at a distance...well lit. I am looking forward to seeing what I get with the extender. In my opinion, your lens on a tripod is excellent for portraits. Thanks. Appreciated.
Thank you for this video. I strongly considering buying one, with IS, it will be used so obviously I cannot justify the price of a 2.8 . Love all the photos but that one of comet Neowise is stunning. Gerry.
I sold most of my Canon lenses, but in the end, I decided to keep my canon 70-200mm F4 IS version. Now, I am switching to the Sony A7C II with a Metabones adapter, which still provides very good autofocus speed and excellent sharpness. So nowadays, this lens is a pretty good choice for a full-frame camera. ❤
Great Video, I had the same decision to make when I bought my Canon 70-200. I intended to use it mainly for landscapes and mostly during the day so with the sweet spot being f/8 - f/11 the f/2.8 wasn’t an issue as was the IS seeing as I always shoot on a tripod. I love this lens, have no regrets other than the few caveats mentioned in this really informative review of both lenses, I appreciate the light weight when out in the field, love the tack sharp images I get with it and really have no regrets going with the f/4 - (and the money I saved) just my two cents . . . and now that I found you I look forward to more of your videos, Cheers
I recently bought this lens with IS, a MK II model, had considered the 2.8 but to be honest would not need it. Price wise I looked around and got a good second-hand lens clean not abused and in good optical order.( Major price save on the new model). I am not a pro. photographer, I just like taking photos and I feel this would be a useful lens to have and to use. The "red ring" is "nice" but the weatherproof / rain-resistant body is the practical element ( optics apart). A good review and sound advice. PS Ireland gets plenty of rain . :)
Very good point, when I use my old 70-200 f2.8 for work, I always stop down to shoot at f4.5 f5.6 so I actually have more depth of field. Switching to the 70-200 f4 lens I am actually carrying less weight. For the same reason I've been loving and shooting with my f4 zoom (16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 lens), lighter, with IS, cheaper and also better balance (for example the 24-70 f2.8 lens is not just heavier but front heavy, with no IS and longer minimum focus distance.
Own one for a decade, Canons "cheapest" L lens on the market since 1999! At the time I bought it I still didn´t think about IS. But recently I bought a 70-200 f4 IS ii and a Tamron 70-200 f 2,8.VC G2. Don´t use the 2.8 lens a lot because of the weight, only for mainly shooting concerts in dark bars. to me the 70-200 mm is a very versatile range on FF. Still own the 70-200 4 non IS and have no intentions to give it away, too many emotional bindings I guess.
And you didn't talk about weight. F/2.8 is really big and heavy. 70-200 F4L is one lense I'd love to buy (IS version). It's a shame that issues with focus ring appear often. I agree about ISO levels today, so maybe Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 could be another choice in this rank.
The f/4 is on my wish list, and I expect to get one in the not-too-distant future. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and considering my level (hobbyist, but always looking to learn more and improve more), it makes more sense than the f/2.8. I can take the money I save and get a 24-105 to put in my bag as well!
I have the 24-105 and it lives on my camera; it is SUCH a workhorse! You won't be disappointed. I have no desire to use the 24-70 because it would be too frustrating to lose that extra 35mm on the long end, and there isn't much difference between f2.8 and f4 anyway. Here's and interesting test: If you use a zoom lens, look at the focal length for each shot in your software and see what focal length you shoot at the most (most software gives you that info). I found that I rarely shoot at the 70mm range. Most of my shots are around 24mm, 105mm, and sometimes 50mm (unless I'm using a long zoom).
I have a couple of these,one is absolutely battered but still it produces fantastic images on both my 7D & also my 1DX which has taken over 1.3 million images. I have numerous L series lenses but honestly amongst my telephoto lenses I use the 70-200mm F4 L more than any other,I personally believe my 200mm F2.8 L is very slightly sharper followed by the old 'magic drainpipe' 80-200mm F2.8L then this lens ahead of the 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS L..for the money imo this is THE best lens you can buy for a Canon DSLR.
My lord... I'm thinking to get the 70-300., if you can make a test about that lens would be interesting, 70-200 is a great lens as I can see but the 70-300 it is a little more compact and ofcourse has and extra range 🤔
If you are looking at the 70-300 L from what I hear it is close to the 70-200 in quality, possibly even better. If you are looking at one of the older 75-300 RUN AWAY fast - A lot of issues.
@@firstchoicephoto Yes it is the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM the white one, I agree with you in to get a lens for the future jobs, capabilities and because the performance... ok sounds good I will take your information and experience to can get it ASAP, it helps a lot. Nope the other 75-300 absolutely not, I have the same information like you say 😬👎. Thanks for your answer ✌ and already I am subscribed to your chanel.😎
Thanks for the comments on the lens. Regarding your pictures I didn't liked them. Only the comet one was good. The horses and the flowers were on a very harsh light with uninteresting composition. I don't want to be mean, just to let you know so you can improve.
When I use my 70-200 f/4 IS L magic happens. It's beautifully sharp. I use it with my Canon 6D whose sensor adds a beautiful quality to it.
I honestly think it's a magic combination. The 6D is the most underrated of cameras.
I have the IS version of the f/4 paired with the 6D mark ii and I love it. My last setup before I took a break from shooting was a 5D mark IV with the 2.8 IS version ii, and the setup I have now really isn’t much of a difference.
me too (6d m1 + 70-200 f4L USM)
The original 70-200 F/4.0 NON IS lens was my ‘first’ L glass, and I had saved up for it for a long time. I really thought I had something, and I did. It was a sweetheart of a lens, and image quality was very good. I have since upgraded to the newest IS Version, same F stop, and that new lens is spectacular, and even works well adapted to R series cameras. The original lens is kept in the family, as my Daughter in law shoots Canon, and receives my ‘hand me downs!’ Happy Shooting!
Oh, BTW, the original lens is quite good at wide open, but really shines stopped down to F/4.5 or 5.0, and especially at 5.6. No need to go further, other than DOF.
It works extremely well (including fast, accurate autofocus) adapted onto a sony A7R2 mirrorless camera with sigma MC-11 and it does have prime level image quality.
I have just bought this lens. I was dismayed when I found I hadn't bought the IS version. Then I began thinking about the sort of pictures I take and how often I would need the IS, I concluded that it wasn't really necessary at this time. So This video was a big boost, many thanks.
Good information for me. I'm looking at some of these Canon 70 - 200mm L lenses on the secondhand market, trying to decide whether I should get an f/4 (about $400) an f/4 IS (about $600) or an f/2.8 (about $800). After watching this, I'm thinking the f/4 would suit me just fine, and it would save a few hundred dollars toward getting a new body in a few months.
Liked and subbed.
Was looking at a cheap 135mm for portraits. Came across one of these online and decided that it would be a better option. €250 second hand was a good deal to me. Yes its really old. I did also had doubts about the lack of IS. But the IS version goes for at least €400. But as my camera body is quite old and entry level. (550D) I know it is not the best a high ISO.
Took it out today and i have never shot better portraits in my life. Also the lens is quite lightweight. Wich is a great bonus. Yes i noticed that IS would be nice. But for a hobbyist, this is awesome for a great price. The sharpness is just something else man.
It gets to be an addictive lens REALLY fast!!
The truth is in this video. Good presentation. With the EF 70-200mm f/4L You can do excellent results. I have used this lens since 2013 and was my first L lens that I bought new. There are guys with 100k€ gear and they don't even know how to use them. Photography is all about the human behind the shutter button. We don't need IS. In fact its so easy with the little L when You put it on a tripod. You never have to think about to switch off the IS. The sharpness of the lens is good, specially on a full frame Canon 5, 6 ja 1DX series. All Canon L lenses are designed to be used on a full frame body, but they do work on APS-C and H(1DMIV) too. But You will see that the sharpness is way off the one with FF sensors.
Great review! I have this lens for more than 10 years and the f2.8 version one, but have used this one (f4) more than the f2.8 lens because the f2.8 lens weights too much.
That photo behind you looks great!
getting one for my 50D (which i love still today), thanks!
Good choice!
I had the non IS version on a Canon D30 back in the day. It made some great images.
I own this 70 200 f4 lens and the photos taken with this lens are in my opinion of a fantastic rendering, some professional photographers have told me about it that this lens without is is even sharper than the version with i.s.
thats true i had a f4 is and when focusing the IS is shaking the picture and very annoying sound, so i bought now the non is
Not really
I'm so glad to hear somebody talk about using a deeper depth of field in photography. Back in the manual focus film days, we shot weddings at f8 to be sure the bride and groom were in focus. I was taught how to isolate the subject with composition rather than shallow depth of field, which I feel is a skill that is lost today.
My main lens is a 24-105 f4, and I am going to buy a 70-200 f4 to keep on my second body. I had the 70-200 f2.8, but I never used it because I didn't want to lug it around all day. If/when I need a shallow depth of field, I have a handful of wide-aperture primes ranging from 35mm to 135mm (I'll never sell my 135 f2!!), but I prefer to shoot at f4 when I can to keep the faces in focus.
Thanks for posting!
Update: Since I commented 6 months ago, I bought the non-IS version and loved it so much, I bought the newer IS version for a back up (I'm sometimes in precarious situations with my cameras). Both copies are amazingly sharp, even wide open, and they are plenty fast at f4 on modern cameras. If I need longer reach, I use this lens with a 1.4 teleconverter on my 90D (crop frame sensor), so then it's effectively a 156-448 f5.6.
One thing I've noticed is there isn't much difference between f2.8 and f4 in real world applications, but the f4 version is substantially lighter. After I did a 7 day shoot for 12 hours a day earlier this year, I really appreciated the lighter camera/lens combination. And to be honest, I haven't seen a HUGE difference between the IS and Non-IS version.
I really enjoyed this video, and the way you come across. I subscribed! Your a down to earth kind'a guy....lol. I might get one of these for my wife this Christmas. It's used, but in excellent condition and it has IS. Thanks again and God bless....
A very good, no nonsense review. I have just bought a second-hand 70-200mm f4 IS USM, I decided the f2.8 was bulkier and heavier and the f4 was more for my needs. It's seemed to me that from the reviews of the new Mark II version (which would have been more than I could afford) basically mostly benefited those those taking video. This must be the first "L" lens to buy for the serious enthusiast.
I have this lens and chose it for all the same reasons - but one note - I have used the f/2.8 version and it is a better build but it should be since it's 3x the cost and 2x the weight - it's not always about max aperture though. - it's about how good the lens is at other apertures - I think the f/2.8 at f/5.6 looked a little bit better than the f/4 at f/5.6, but unless you saw the images side by side, who cares... the big thing for me was the weight - not sure I could shoot for 2 hrs with the f/2.8 version handheld these days... this f/4 weights about the same as my 24-70 f/4L so it's not gonna break your hand after a while lol
Im toying with buying the newer v2 of this one since it does have 3 levels of IS... Im mostly a prime lens guy... since nothing compares to some of canon's primes... the 50 f/1.2 for example... but for a decent zoom lens, you can't beat it esp used - I think I saw one just now for like $350! - that's a steal for this build and quality.
Excellent. Picked up this lens--will mainly be using it indoors for portraits and short films. All on tripods. Recently ordered a 2 times extender. Figure it'll be fine because I have control of the light. Unlike you(in some instances)--I will use this FOR it's shallow depth of field at a distance...well lit. I am looking forward to seeing what I get with the extender. In my opinion, your lens on a tripod is excellent for portraits. Thanks. Appreciated.
Thank you for this video. I strongly considering buying one, with IS, it will be used so obviously I cannot justify the price of a 2.8 .
Love all the photos but that one of comet Neowise is stunning.
Gerry.
I sold most of my Canon lenses, but in the end, I decided to keep my canon 70-200mm F4 IS version. Now, I am switching to the Sony A7C II with a Metabones adapter, which still provides very good autofocus speed and excellent sharpness. So nowadays, this lens is a pretty good choice for a full-frame camera. ❤
It is one lens that I would miss if I ever sold it.
Great review. Thanxs.
Great Video, I had the same decision to make when I bought my Canon 70-200. I intended to use it mainly for landscapes and mostly during the day so with the sweet spot being f/8 - f/11 the f/2.8 wasn’t an issue as was the IS seeing as I always shoot on a tripod. I love this lens, have no regrets other than the few caveats mentioned in this really informative review of both lenses, I appreciate the light weight when out in the field, love the tack sharp images I get with it and really have no regrets going with the f/4 - (and the money I saved) just my two cents . . . and now that I found you I look forward to more of your videos, Cheers
I recently bought this lens with IS, a MK II model, had considered the 2.8 but to be honest would not need it. Price wise I looked around and got a good second-hand lens clean not abused and in good optical order.( Major price save on the new model). I am not a pro. photographer, I just like taking photos and I feel this would be a useful lens to have and to use. The "red ring" is "nice" but the weatherproof / rain-resistant body is the practical element ( optics apart). A good review and sound advice. PS Ireland gets plenty of rain . :)
In one word...great teacher!!
Very good point, when I use my old 70-200 f2.8 for work, I always stop down to shoot at f4.5 f5.6 so I actually have more depth of field. Switching to the 70-200 f4 lens I am actually carrying less weight. For the same reason I've been loving and shooting with my f4 zoom (16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 lens), lighter, with IS, cheaper and also better balance (for example the 24-70 f2.8 lens is not just heavier but front heavy, with no IS and longer minimum focus distance.
Very good portrait and landscape lens
Own one for a decade, Canons "cheapest" L lens on the market since 1999! At the time I bought it I still didn´t think about IS. But recently I bought a 70-200 f4 IS ii and a Tamron 70-200 f 2,8.VC G2. Don´t use the 2.8 lens a lot because of the weight, only for mainly shooting concerts in dark bars. to me the 70-200 mm is a very versatile range on FF. Still own the 70-200 4 non IS and have no intentions to give it away, too many emotional bindings I guess.
You should give her a name if your keeping her....lol
I have both the F4 and the F 2.8 and I use them on my R5 and on my 90d. awesome lenses.
The f4 is a collectors edition now as Canon is or has discontinued it. A good workhorse lens to hang on to.
And you didn't talk about weight. F/2.8 is really big and heavy. 70-200 F4L is one lense I'd love to buy (IS version). It's a shame that issues with focus ring appear often. I agree about ISO levels today, so maybe Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 could be another choice in this rank.
great review. Thanks for sharing.
The f/4 is on my wish list, and I expect to get one in the not-too-distant future. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and considering my level (hobbyist, but always looking to learn more and improve more), it makes more sense than the f/2.8. I can take the money I save and get a 24-105 to put in my bag as well!
I have the 24-105 and it lives on my camera; it is SUCH a workhorse! You won't be disappointed. I have no desire to use the 24-70 because it would be too frustrating to lose that extra 35mm on the long end, and there isn't much difference between f2.8 and f4 anyway. Here's and interesting test: If you use a zoom lens, look at the focal length for each shot in your software and see what focal length you shoot at the most (most software gives you that info). I found that I rarely shoot at the 70mm range. Most of my shots are around 24mm, 105mm, and sometimes 50mm (unless I'm using a long zoom).
I have a couple of these,one is absolutely battered but still it produces fantastic images on both my 7D & also my 1DX which has taken over 1.3 million images. I have numerous L series lenses but honestly amongst my telephoto lenses I use the 70-200mm F4 L more than any other,I personally believe my 200mm F2.8 L is very slightly sharper followed by the old 'magic drainpipe' 80-200mm F2.8L then this lens ahead of the 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS L..for the money imo this is THE best lens you can buy for a Canon DSLR.
For the size it seems to punch above its weight class.
A must have regardless of what you dp
My lord... I'm thinking to get the 70-300., if you can make a test about that lens would be interesting, 70-200 is a great lens as I can see but the 70-300 it is a little more compact and ofcourse has and extra range 🤔
If you are looking at the 70-300 L from what I hear it is close to the 70-200 in quality, possibly even better. If you are looking at one of the older 75-300 RUN AWAY fast - A lot of issues.
@@firstchoicephoto Yes it is the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM the white one, I agree with you in to get a lens for the future jobs, capabilities and because the performance... ok sounds good I will take your information and experience to can get it ASAP, it helps a lot. Nope the other 75-300 absolutely not, I have the same information like you say 😬👎. Thanks for your answer ✌ and already I am subscribed to your chanel.😎
Thanks for the comments on the lens. Regarding your pictures I didn't liked them. Only the comet one was good. The horses and the flowers were on a very harsh light with uninteresting composition. I don't want to be mean, just to let you know so you can improve.
You are entitled to your opinion. I guess my 38 years of doing this and millions in print sales and I still have room for improvement.
This Lens Rocks
Great video , thanks
Good review.
I have it, and love it :)
I've had this lens for a while. It's a great lens
lens
It is!
Woody everyone great lens
If I use it on a IS body is it good
IS body??
@@firstchoicephoto IBIS I think
❤👍👍👍
You can use it on an image stabilised body
Yes on the newer camera that offer that you can.
@@firstchoicephoto Exactly. Models like r6 and r5 ...
Yep!! Buy Sigma and you'll save a ton of money and get the same results!
I rely on IS and AF. Old eyes and fingers.
Oh how I understand!!!