Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II.</p>
<p><strong>From the Review:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>… Full frame f/4 results from the II are impressively sharp from corner to corner over the entire focal length range. Stopping down the aperture does not improve sharpness and no improvements are needed. Describing the image sharpness of a high-performing lens is simple. That makes my job easier and the results are very fun to look at.</p>
<p>… Need a light, compact, high-quality telephoto zoom lens? Most kits do and telephoto zoom lenses do not get much better than this one. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM Lens is one that everyone can find uses for, none will tire of holding, a significant percentage of photographers can afford and I expect all will be extremely happy with the image quality this one produces. This is simply a great little lens. Your kit will be better with this lens in it! <a href="https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II is in stock and shipping from <a href="https://www.adorama.com/ca7020042.html?kbid=64393">Adroama</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[CanoKnight]

Ver 1 of this lens which I own is already near perfect.

 

[jedy]

Ver 1 of this lens which I own is already near perfect.

Well, the newer version will obviously cost more than the current version. I sometimes wonder if this is Canon's motivation ;-). I believe if you're more than happy with the lens you've got, there's probably no reason to upgrade (assuming the upgrades in the newer lens are worth the extra cost).

 

[jedy]

Here in the UK (according to Amazon UK) the 70-200mm f4 IS L II is £360 more than the previous version but only £290 less than the 24-70mm f2.8 IS L II. If size and weight aren't an issue, the 2.8 lens seems like much better value for money and will probably give better long term value in terms of a potential secondhand sale.

 

[Bennymiata]

I've been hanging out for a 70-200 and this looks like the one I'll buy.
The 2.8 is also great, but too heavy for my casual uses, and I usually use f5.6 or f8, so the 2.8 is not much use for me.

 

[YuengLinger]

Ver 1 of this lens which I own is already near perfect.

Aren't you glad you've gotten that off your chest? :

 

[deleteme]

Sounds great but will it mount on my new FF mirrorless camera?

 

[michi]

When you go to the comparison tool for image quality, there is basically zero difference between the two lenses. The red chromatic aberration may be controlled a tiny bit better in version two. Unless you are itching for better image stabilization, or the difference of 8 to 9 aperture blades, I see zero reason to upgrade. Why they don't spend their development funds on a new 50 1.4 or another lens which desperately needs an overhaul is beyond me.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This lens is scheduled for delivery for me to review today. I suspect it is a very good lens, though it seems likely at this point that the improvement is very incremental. The Tamron 70-210mm VC left me ever-so-slightly underwhelmed, so I'm hoping this will be better.

Canon's approach to replacing these L series lenses seems, well, odd. I wonder (outside of kit sales) how well the 24-105L II is selling? It was a truly underwhelming lens for me personally.

There was one key point in the 24-105L II that I suspect is also part of Canon's strategy with these new 70-200s - the focus motor was MUCH better tuned for use with both DPAF and for Video Servo AF. That indicates that it will also function much better in a mirrorless application...which may be Canon's strategy if they continue to utilize the EF mount for their rumored FF mirrorless.

 

[Sharlin]

There was one key point in the 24-105L II that I suspect is also part of Canon's strategy with these new 70-200s - the focus motor was MUCH better tuned for use with both DPAF and for Video Servo AF. That indicates that it will also function much better in a mirrorless application...which may be Canon's strategy if they continue to utilize the EF mount for their rumored FF mirrorless.

I think another thing that may be going on is upgrading the internal construction or parts of it to be more friendly to robotic assembly (which Canon has expressed they have been focusing on a lot lately). It makes sense to update these "workhorse" lenses that are sold a lot.

 

[Durf]

This lens is scheduled for delivery for me to review today. I suspect it is a very good lens, though it seems likely at this point that the improvement is very incremental. The Tamron 70-210mm VC left me ever-so-slightly underwhelmed, so I'm hoping this will be better.

Canon's approach to replacing these L series lenses seems, well, odd. I wonder (outside of kit sales) how well the 24-105L II is selling? It was a truly underwhelming lens for me personally.

There was one key point in the 24-105L II that I suspect is also part of Canon's strategy with these new 70-200s - the focus motor was MUCH better tuned for use with both DPAF and for Video Servo AF. That indicates that it will also function much better in a mirrorless application...which may be Canon's strategy if they continue to utilize the EF mount for their rumored FF mirrorless.

Well I hope you don't like this new 70-200 lens too much as I don't want you to talk me in to buying this lens too! LOL

regardless, looking forward to your review on it

 

[ahsanford]

Pro:

• Canon: resets the birthdate on this product to the present. It is no longer an 'old' product not worthy of the price it originally commanded. Canon will be able to defend a higher price longer than if they didn't do this.
• Canon: possibly (as many have said) are enjoying standard cost reductions and improved lens-to-lens consistency from a modernized/automated manufacturing process.
• Photographers: Improved IS
• Photographers: Shortened MFD
• Photographers: Flare reduced
• Photographers: One more blade for slightly better bokeh
• Photographers: All your superwhites are a matching color now.

Opportunity lost:

• Everyone: no clear and demonstrable improvement in the image quality
• Photographer: using a CPL with a hood is going to continue to suck.
• Canon: could have tried to develop experience with ultra-light materials, carbon fiber, etc.

Con:

• Canon: The L series loses just a hair of its luster with a 24-105L II sort of refresh. Historically, Canon doesn't phone in its 'sequels' like this, and now it's happened twice in recent years. Canon clearly can do better.

I wouldn't let the sheer number of pros/cons have you think I'm a fan here. I'm not. I'm sure it's a fine instrument as its predecessor was stellar, but I was hoping for a legitimately new and improved optical design for the high resolution future. This simply wasn't that.

- A

 

[AlanF]

Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

"Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories."

It was a revelation 11 years ago optically, and had the then phenomenal 4 stops of IS. The lens is due a refresh and we can't expect dramatic improvements. I have attached the Canon official MTFs for the old and the new lenses. Canon's computations show improvements, which I believe rather than the TDP crude tests. We have to wait for more testing from other sites and users to get a consensus.

 

[Don Haines]

Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

"Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories."

It was a revelation 11 years ago optically, and had the then phenomenal 4 stops of IS. The lens is due a refresh and we can't expect dramatic improvements. I have attached the Canon official MTFs for the old and the new lenses. Canon's computations show improvements, which I believe rather than the TDP crude tests. We have to wait for more testing from other sites and users to get a consensus.

And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain? This is a zoom lens that is substantially better than the primes that I started with! (Of course, new primes are even better). Not only that, but it is constant length, which means you can use it in insanely nasty conditions and not be pumping dust or salty air through your camera like those other expanding designs....

So.... after all those years they come up with better coatings and improve the electronics, and people complain? I’m sorry, but if you have a problem with the quality of the optics, go learn lens design and try to come up with a better design that is also as robust and well sealed as this lens..... good luck!

I have the version one of the lens. I love it! It is lens perfection except for noisy IS..... I will not replace it with the new one, I will be thankful that they did such a great job designing the first one, and for all those future buyers of the version 2, rejoice because this is as good as it gets.

 

[jd7]

Pro:

• Canon: resets the birthdate on this product to the present. It is no longer an 'old' product not worthy of the price it originally commanded. Canon will be able to defend a higher price longer than if they didn't do this.
• Canon: possibly (as many have said) are enjoying standard cost reductions and improved lens-to-lens consistency from a modernized/automated manufacturing process.
• Photographers: Improved IS
• Photographers: Shortened MFD
• Photographers: Flare reduced
• Photographers: One more blade for slightly better bokeh
• Photographers: All your superwhites are a matching color now.

Opportunity lost:

• Everyone: no clear and demonstrable improvement in the image quality
• Photographer: using a CPL with a hood is going to continue to suck.
• Canon: could have tried to develop experience with ultra-light materials, carbon fiber, etc.

Con:

• Canon: The L series loses just a hair of its luster with a 24-105L II sort of refresh. Historically, Canon doesn't phone in its 'sequels' like this, and now it's happened twice in recent years. Canon clearly can do better.

I wouldn't let the sheer number of pros/cons have you think I'm a fan here. I'm not. I'm sure it's a fine instrument as its predecessor was stellar, but I was hoping for a legitimately new and improved optical design for the high resolution future. This simply wasn't that.

- A

Dustin's post above suggests you can add AF for DPAF and video servo (albeit perhaps not for PDAF(?)) to the list of pros too.

As for Canon's L series losing any of its lustre because of updates/refreshes which are optically little or no different from the previous version, it doesn't strike me that way. If the updated/refreshed model is still about as good as or better than anything else available for that class of lens (at least short of something in a much higher price bracket), why think less of Canon or the L series? I know often, at least in relatively recent times, a new model as heralded significant optical improvement, but even if it's not if a new model is different in some way and Canon wants to release it, why not? For those with the older model, the older model won't suddenly be less good than it was before! (I guess one potential downside which may bother a few people is re-sale value of the older model, but I will be surprised if there is a huge drop when the older model is not much different from the new one.)

Anyway, my guess (FWIW) is there is some method to the madness here. A desire by Canon to use a new, automated assembly process would make sense, and then Canon would have to decide whether to make any improvements to the lens when they implemented the new system and if they did make improvements, whether to let them be "silent improvements" or publicise the changes via a new model. Not hard to see why Canon might decide to go with the new model if the changes are of any significance at all (eg reduced flare).

However, if the newer lenses are getting AF motors which work better with DPAF and video servo AF - and especially if those features will make a real difference on a mirrorless camera - then it's easy to see why Canon would release new models of workhorse lenses. It's a much simpler message to tell people they need version X of a particular lens to get the most out of a new FF mirrorless camera than to tell people they need a copy of a particular lens made after a certain date to get the most out of a new FF mirrorless camera, And if that is the answer, the new models may end up being significant improvements (as photography tools, if not from an optics point of view) for those who go with a FF mirrorless camera once it's released.

Time will tell I guess!

 

[ahsanford]

There was one key point in the 24-105L II that I suspect is also part of Canon's strategy with these new 70-200s - the focus motor was MUCH better tuned for use with both DPAF and for Video Servo AF. That indicates that it will also function much better in a mirrorless application...which may be Canon's strategy if they continue to utilize the EF mount for their rumored FF mirrorless.

Whoa, time out. The Ring USM in the 24-105L II is better than the I version under the same camera body's DPAF?! You've published on this, Dustin? I would love to read about that.

I was under the impression that lenses with ring USM -- ring USM + FTM focusing, not the odd ring USM + FBW variants out there -- didn't get better / worse with respect to DPAF. I thought they all worked about the same under DPAF, and if DPAF performance improvements ever came, they'd come from body improvements, not lens improvements.

If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video? Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

Also: this finding, if true, feels like a Ring USM for DPAF, or Ring USM II, and I'd want to know exactly which lenses do and do not have it.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video? Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

This would totally be a top-line selling point. It would encourage Mk I people with DPAF bodies to pony up to buy the new one, it would scare off prospective FF mirrorless users or current DPAF SLR owners from bargain-hunting the Mk I, etc.

Again: If true, why on earth wouldn't Canon come out front and center with this?

- A

 

[Don Haines]

If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video? Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

This would totally be a top-line selling point. It would encourage Mk I people with DPAF bodies to pony up to buy the new one, it would scare off prospective FF mirrorless users or current DPAF SLR owners from bargain-hunting the Mk I, etc.

Again: If true, why on earth wouldn't Canon come out front and center with this?

- A

i agree

Obviously the electronics is upgraded, there is more computing power so it can IS better, and if the algorithms for AF have also been improved, then one would expect better AF performance.....

It’s hard to put numbers on these things, but one would at least expect Canon to say that it is improved..... surely they would be bragging about “new and improved”....

I can see them keeping quiet and not mentioning “less copy variation” or “greater AF consistency” because they don’t want to publicly admit to the masses that such things exist.... but not saying “faster” is something I don’t understand

 

[ahsanford]

And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain?

Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

Glad you brought that up. From Photozone, here's how they pegged the Mk I:

8 MP Crop: 5.0 stars optical rating
15 MP Crop: 4.5 stars
21 MP FF: 4.0 stars

It's 2018 now, and there are +29 more MP to perform on. How do you think it will rate on that finer canvas?

IMHO, Canon can't keep cranking out higher resolution sensors and not have us expect to see L glass improve over time in return. I wasn't looking for a budget optical miracle, but a clearly optically better lens for (say) $1699-1799 would have been a better call I think. In absence of that, this remains an underweight and unwarranted refresh to me.

Would you be happy if Canon did this to another legendary, perceived-to-be-perfect instrument? If the 135 f/2L II only got about the same performance, would you be all right with that?

I believe my pros-cons list was fair. If that is whinging, I shall continue to do it.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain?

Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

Glad you brought that up. From Photozone, here's how they pegged the Mk I:

8 MP Crop: 5.0 stars optical rating
15 MP Crop: 4.5 stars
21 MP FF: 4.0 stars

It's 2018 now, and there are +29 more MP to perform on. How do you think it will rate on that finer canvas?

IMHO, Canon can't keep cranking out higher resolution sensors and not have us expect to see L glass improve over time in return. I wasn't looking for a budget optical miracle, but a clearly optically better lens for (say) $1699-1799 would have been a better call I think. In absence of that, this remains an underweight and unwarranted refresh to me.

Would you be happy if Canon did this to another legendary, perceived-to-be-perfect instrument? If the 135 f/2L II only got about the same performance, would you be all right with that?

I believe my pros-cons list was fair. If that is whinging, I shall continue to do it.

- A

But are we now at the point where even the best zooms are not good enough to get the full potential out of high megapixel cameras? Have we reached the point where it’s only good primes to get that level of performance?