bigguytf

Hi all, anyone have any experience using the Canon 70-20 4L Is verses the upgrade Canon 70-20 4L Is II USM.
I am aware of the difference in the IS stops but I am wondering ifs there is a difference in the glass/sharpness/clarity of the versions. When Canon upgraded the 70- 200 2.8 to version 2 there was significant difference in the clearness/sharpness of the lens. When Canon upgraded the 100-400 to version 2 there was also a significant difference in the clearness/sharpness/focus of the lens.

What I am asking/looking for here did this also happen in the 70-200 4L is when they updated to version 2.

Thanks in advance for your input. Hope I fixed the errors in my post.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You have about an hour to correct your typos in both the title line and the content of the post. Use the <edit> button below the comment box and the 'edit title / subject' option in the upper left.

Canon's several 70-200 zooms are virtually identical in image quality. There are not in fact significant differences in the version numbers nor between the max aperture models. Rather, each version provides a slightly different mix of technology, weight, and pricing options among otherwise identical models. The IS capabilities are an area of difference, but you have to ask yourself how much you leverage this feature and does replacing one model with a new / more expensive model make the bang for the buck if another 1- or 2-stops IS support is the significant difference? With Canon's release of the RF versions, you may find they've stopped manufacturing the EF model and finding a new copy is more difficult than expected.

User ID

Not in my book but if you hum a few bars I can fake the rest ;-)

User ID

Not in my book. But if you hum a few bars I could probably fake the rest ;-)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

YES, a small increase ......according to all the data and reviews I have seen.
.

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

Www.the-digital-picture.com is a good source of comprehensive equipment reviews.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Reading past all the typos, I'm going to assume you are trying to choose between the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (original version from 2006) and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM "II" (2018).

Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture.com has a pretty thorough review and seems quite excited about the new version: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Me, I'm not so impressed. I've used the first version a lot. It's a great lens. Very sharp, fast focusing, good image stabilization, well built and durable. Personally, while there are a number of rather incremental improvements, it's not enough for me to want to update to the new version.

I originally bought my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM used, as a backup to one of my most used lenses, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (original version). I soon found myself using the f/4 lens more often... it's smaller, lighter and sharper. Of course with an f/4 aperture it can't render quite as strongly out of focus background, but I was rarely using the f/2.8 lens wide open most of the time anyway. The f/4 lens also has better IS than the older f/2.8.

The new "II" is very slightly larger and very slightly heavier than the original version of the f/4L IS. It has a similar but revised optical formula with somewhat better close focusing ability, added coatings for better dust resistance and easier cleaning, as well as a 9-blade aperture (compared to 8-blade in the original). The "II" also has slightly improved Image Stabilization.

The "II" uses 72mm filters, while the original uses 67mm.

The "II" lens is painted the brighter white Canon has been using on recent lenses and costs $100 more than the original. Both of which are still available in some stores.

Like most (all?) Canon L-series lenses, both come with a lens hood. The original lens has a simple bayonet mount hood, while the "II" has the locking bayonet type that Canon has been using on many of their recent lenses (and which cost a lot more than the older type).

Neither lens comes with a tripod mounting ring, but one is optionally available. The original lens uses Tripod Ring A-2 (White), which sells for $150 (there are cheaper 3rd party clones). The "II" uses Tripod Ring AII(WII) costs $165 (AFAIK, there aren't any clones yet). I suspect these tripod rings are interchangeable, that the main difference is the color.

Doing image quality, vignetting, flare and distortion comparisons of the two lenses at the-Digital-Picture.com shows minimal differences. Comparing the MTF for them suggests the "II" is slightly sharper in the center, while they are virtually identical toward the periphery of the images. I have a hard time seeing any difference comparing the image quality test shots side by side.

You would probably be happy with either lens, but read the reviews and decide if the slightly higher cost of the newer lens is worth it to you. Personally I won't be updating mine.