crphoto8 Loc: Anaheim, California

It depends on what you intend to shoot. I took a Canon 5D Mk3, 70-200/f4, 1.4 extender to an African safari. This combo worked well for me. The lens is light enough to hand hold. The extender reduces the max aperture to 5.6 but there was enough light to go. I shot in aperture priority set at f10 or f11. The ISO was usually low enough to avoid noise, except at or after sunset when the hippos come out of the water.
That's me, your mileage may vary depending on your needs.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

When I see a post such as this one, I take a look at the OPs other posts. It seems the OP does many more artistic type shots, like "Mailboxes" old trucks, etc. But what disturbs me is the indoor basketball shots. The Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS, USM lens will be fine for the outdoor "artsy" shots, but will fall short with indoor gym shots, due to gym lighting, and fast subject movement. The OP returned a lens that was a f2, and I wonder what lens this was. I'm thinking that it was expensive, over $2000, but was to cumbersome. The lens I'm thinking the OP returned is the EF 200mm f2L IS, USM lens, and agree this lens is cumbersome, but a very good lens. The OP is shooting now with a 70D, but mentioned in previous posts using a Rebel. In her previous threads, she failed to check "store original" so the EXIF data is not available. On this thread, the OP has not returned to comment on the questions other UHH members have made. So, I'm thinking the f4L lens is her best bet, with what my research of her shooting habits.

B

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Very difficult to understand your question...

Let me make sure I'm reading this right.... You have a Canon 70D camera that you like and plan to keep. You wanted a telephoto zoom lens and have bought a Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM Mark II that cost about $2000. That's a great lens, but it's larger and heavier than you like, not to mention rather pricey.

So you're considering returning the 70-200/2.8 and instead buying a Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM (which should have cost around $1100) and are wondering what people think of this option... right?

I use both a 70-200/2.8 and an EF 70-200/4 IS USM. I bought the f4 lens as a "backup", because 70-200 is one of my most used lenses. Now I actually find myself using the f4 lens more often. (Note: My EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM is the first version, which is older... from about 2001 or 2002... not quite as sharp wide open as the "Mark II", and has slightly less capable image stabilization.... but is still an excellent lens and is almost exactly the same size and weight as the newer lens.)

The f4 is a fine lens... very sharp and well made.

It's a few years older than the 70-200/2.8L IS "Mark II", but shares a lot of the same image qualities. Both lenses use a fluorite element (the cheapest Nikkor with fluorite costs $10,000).

Of course, f4 is not quite as good blurring down images at max aperture. But at f4 and smaller apertures you'll have a hard time telling apart images from the two lenses. Both lenses use an 8-blade aperture, with curved blades.

They have nearly identical controls including a two-range focus limiter and IS with Mode 1 (standard/2-axis) and Mode 2 (panning/single-axis).

They have virtually identical close focus/max magnification capabilities (about 1 meter and 1/5 life size mag).

Build is similar premium "L-quality". Both are fully internal zooming and focusing. This means that they remain the same length regardless of zoom or focus setting.

One advantage of this is the lens can be better sealed for dust and moisture resistance. The newer f2.8 might have a little more thorough sealing, but the f4 lens is pretty darned good.

The f4 has 3-4 stop rated Image Stabilization, same as the f2.8 Mark II.

Both have very high performance USM focus drive.... fast and accurate. Thanks to its larger aperture the f2.8 can be a tiny bit faster focusing in some more challenging situations (though this depends upon the camera and AF setup being used too).

Some differences:

The f4 is about 2/3 the size and less than 1/2 the weight (note: without tripod ring).

The f4 versions use 67mm filters, while the f2.8 70-200s all use 77mm.

It also uses a standard type of lens hood, instead of the "tulip" shaped the f2.8 uses. (There are third party "tulip" hoods for the f4... but why?)

The f2.8 lenses include a tripod ring. The f4 lenses don't, although they can optionally be fitted with one. It costs about $150 for the Canon Tripod Ring "C".... but there are cheaper third party copies of it for around $50 (Note: avoid the even cheaper tripod rings because they're probably plastic instead of metal, and will not hold up).

The tripod rings for the f4 lenses are "hinged", which allows them to be installed or removed while the lens is still mounted on the camera. The heavier duty tripod rings on the f2.8 lenses are also removable, but it's necessary to remove the lens from the camera first, to do so.

On your 70D, if you wish you could use a 2X teleconverter on the f2.8 lens and still be able to autofocus. With the f4 lens the strongest teleconverter you could still autofocus with on 70D is a 1.4X. (Note: There is some image quality and AF performance loss to any teleconverter.... Generally more with a stronger 2X than with a 1.4X. How much and whether or not the images are usable depends upon the quality of the teleconverter and how much loss is acceptable to you. Personally I don't use teleconverters on either of my 70-200s, but that's just because I have other, longer telephotos that serve instead and give better IQ than possible with either of the zooms + a TC.)

In the end, I don't hesitate to recommend the EF 70-200/4L IS USM.... it's an excellent lens and can serve very well. No doubt the EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM Mark II is the very "latest and greatest", but the f4 lens some pretty darned close... and for a lot less money. In fact, all four of the Canon 70-200s (choice of f4, f2.8 and IS or unstabilized) are tough, durable "workhorses" with excellent image quality and great AF performance. You'll find one or another of them in most Canon pro shooters' camera bags. Simply pick and choose among them the one that best fits your needs. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

There also are some very good 70-200s from third party manufacturers... Sigma and especially the newer Tamron SP 70-200/2.8 VC USD. However, these will rival the size and weight of the larger Canon f2.8 zooms. I don't think anyone is making a more compact f4 version to fit Canon right now. (I'm pretty sure Tokina has one, but only offers it in Nikon mount.)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Paid $12 for my third party tripod collar off ebay - have had NO problems in 5 years........

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

All of the current 70-200's are astoundingly good with TC's - especially the f4's - have you actually tried one ?? I have used them and the 300 2.8 - very close - and a LOT more convenient !

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Glad to hear it!

Is it metal or plastic?

I'm just cautious about the really inexpensive plastic ones that have been showing up recently... because I've seen some reports of them breaking.

The only issues I've heard with the metal ones is that some don't snug up tightly enough... but that can be fixed pretty easily by adding a layer or electrician's tape inside the ring.

Either way... they are a whole lot less expensive than the OEM Canon Ring C (which I got because it was already on the 70-200/4 when I bought it used)



No, I haven't bothered to try either my 1.4X or 2X on my 70-200/4. I found image quality of 1.4X on 70-200/2.8 IS (first version) to be marginal, and IQ with 2X unacceptable.

Even if IQ is acceptable (that's a judgment call for each user)... 1.4X on 70-200/4 makes for an effective 98-280mm f5.6, while a 2X on it makes for an effective 140-400mm f8. IQ aside, I'm struggling to find enough light already and making them f5.6 or f8 would be a problem.

But since I have 300/4 (often used with 1.4X as a 420/5.6), 300/2.8 (sometimes used with either 1.4X or 2X as 420/4 or 600/5.6) and 500/4 (used with 1.4X as 700/5.6 and sometimes 2X as a 1000/8)... plus 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 Mark II (not used with TCs, as yet)... I just don't have very much need to use my 70-200s with teleconverters.

All that aside, I was trying to be judgmental about using TCs on the 70-200s.... I'll leave that for each user to decide for themselves. I was pointing out that on the original poster's 70D the f4 lens won't autofocus with a 2X, but will with a 1.4X.... while the f2.8 lens can AF on that camera with either TC.

JPL

Nikon D500 and the new f4 300 mm lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

the Nikon 300 is a great lens but not as versatile as 70-200 W/1.4X ....although it (70-200) looses 1 f-stop - and the 80D is nice - if you can live without 10 FPS.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

It's METAL - never seen a plastic one ! The 70-200 f4 non IS and the 2.8 II are really good with TC's - especially 1.4X ( Kenko Pro and Tamron SP included).

boomer826 Loc: Florida gulf coast

Alicia2 Loc: San Clemente

THANKS FOR YOUR IN PUT!!