Canon EF 70-200 F4 IS II?
- Thread starter MiamiC70
- Start date
Agreed that there doesn't seem to be much demand for a revamp. I owned the f/4 IS before upgrading to the f/2.8 IS II and the f/4 seemed every bit as sharp... possibly even sharper (at least in the comparison of the copies I have/had). Build quality is perfect and it performs admirably.
Wouldn't hold my breath for a version II for quite a while.
Wouldn't hold my breath for a version II for quite a while.
Upvote
0
This lens is one of the best lenses in terms of IQ and portability. I would like to see a revamp to the 300mm f4L IS to get the newer glasses, IS and technologyMiamiC70 said:
Upvote
0
The f-4 is so good already, my guess would be any improvement worth doing would increase the cost quite a bit. It's the sharpest lens I own at the moment (16-35, 24-105, 70-200 f4, 100-400 v2)
If someone said: "The 70-200 f4 IS is the best zoom lens Canon builds." I'd agree with that statement.
If someone said: "The 70-200 f4 IS is the best zoom lens Canon builds." I'd agree with that statement.
Upvote
0
I have the older 70-200/2.8 IS. When I was thinking of upgrading to the vII version of that lens, a friend of mine suggested I look at the f/4 IS instead. For what I could sell the f/2.8 and what it would cost extra to get the vII of that lens, I could get the f/4 IS on sale, so I did that and kept the f/2.8 v1. I will say, the f/4 is sharper then the 2.8/v1 by a good margin. The AF is more consistent as well. These are the two things I expected from the 2.8/v2, but of course in a much bigger & heavier package than the f/4. I'm happy with the combination I have now, the f/2.8 for those times I really want the most luscious bokeh possible (the v1 in this respect is reported to be better than the vII, which I've heard has a slightly 'harsher' bokeh, which seems to be the only aspect of that lens that wasn't improved over the v1), and the ultra light weight, super sharp photos of the f/4 when maximum shallow dof isn't the primary need.
All this is to say, like everyone else has said so far, I don't see any pressing need to update the 70-200/4.0 IS lens. It's really one of the best performance/price combination lenses in the entire Canon lineup. It's like the old saying, "don't fix it if it ain't broke."
All this is to say, like everyone else has said so far, I don't see any pressing need to update the 70-200/4.0 IS lens. It's really one of the best performance/price combination lenses in the entire Canon lineup. It's like the old saying, "don't fix it if it ain't broke."
Upvote
0
Seeing as how the Canon 70-200 F4 IS is still better than every other 70-200 F4. Don't expect anything for a long time. It was the first of the new era Canon zoom lenses with prime optical sharpness. Best they could do is make it have less flare, but even then it is pretty good.MiamiC70 said:
Upvote
0
I own both - the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2,8 IS II - the f4 sits on my 5DM2 and provides incredible image quality at little weight. Its an awesome lens I don't see what to improve. This is one that i will never sell.
Upvote
0
I agree with everyone here.
This lense is already on the top.
If there's something to improve, it's turn down the sound of IS, that's all.
If you hesitate to buy it because of possibility of model-II, don't worry.
Canon has a lot of lenses which need to improve before 70-200F4L.
GO BUY IT, lol.
May the EOS be with you.
This lense is already on the top.
If there's something to improve, it's turn down the sound of IS, that's all.
If you hesitate to buy it because of possibility of model-II, don't worry.
Canon has a lot of lenses which need to improve before 70-200F4L.
GO BUY IT, lol.
May the EOS be with you.
Upvote
0
If you were to ask me what the best Canon lens ever designed is, I would have no hesitation saying that the 70-200F4IS is it.
The lens is very sharp, it is lightweight, it is low cost. It is constant length and that GREATLY improves water and dust resistance (note the rubber gasket on the lens mount)..... and it even plays well with teleconverters!
Yes, it is possible to improve it slightly with lots of expensive fluorite elements and some of the newer coatings are an improvement, but at the cost of affordability. Right now it is the perfect balance and one of Canon's best selling lenses. I can't see them messing with it when almost every other sub $2000 lens needs it more....
The lens is very sharp, it is lightweight, it is low cost. It is constant length and that GREATLY improves water and dust resistance (note the rubber gasket on the lens mount)..... and it even plays well with teleconverters!
Yes, it is possible to improve it slightly with lots of expensive fluorite elements and some of the newer coatings are an improvement, but at the cost of affordability. Right now it is the perfect balance and one of Canon's best selling lenses. I can't see them messing with it when almost every other sub $2000 lens needs it more....
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Mt Spokane Photography said:
I would very much agree. The f2.8 LIS II version was brought up to the f4's standard.
The f4 LIS has a number of great advantages, it's size and weight are two. It's optically fantastic (very close in resolution terms as the f2.8 LIS II), it takes 1.4x extenders really well. It's got a 4 stop IS and it's AF is very fast. I think the only updates which could improve this lens are to add the newer coatings and make the IS and AF motors more quiet. But for the obvious price hike a re-development and retool will require, it's a lot of ask for very little improvement.
Upvote
0
The only thing possibly needs upgrading is its USM perhaps. I had mine broken twice with no impact-damage whatsoever. So called focus ring slippage... I guess I was just unlucky. After that I bought myself 70-200/2.8 II and never regretted that decision (apart from my right shoulder rotator cuff... 
).
).
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Khalai said:The only thing possibly needs upgrading is its USM perhaps. I had mine broken twice with no impact-damage whatsoever. So called focus ring slippage... I guess I was just unlucky. After that I bought myself 70-200/2.8 II and never regretted that decision (apart from my right shoulder rotator cuff...
for some stuff, the f2.8 LIS II is better for other stuff the f4 LIS is better. I found the F4 is better at MFD than the 2.8. In my kit, the 70-200 covers the 100mm and 135mm range and I find the f2.8 a bit wiedly and cumbersome for those ranges when compared to the size of my 24-70 f2.8. Sure I have a 100mm macro and 135 f2 L, but that's two additional lenses to carry.
Upvote
0
MiamiC70 said:
Around the lauch of the 5DS there was a comment that only L lenses released since 2010 are designed to the required sharpness of the higher resolution. That puts the 70-200/4 L IS on the list of lenses due for replacement. However, it may be some way down the list. I'm hoping that the primes come first
Upvote
0
Even do I have the 2.8 II every time I see the F4 version I'm tempted to buy it.
It looks so small and cute and light.
It must be a great travel lens.
It's sharp too.
I love the 2.8 but the F4 has its merits.
It looks so small and cute and light.
It must be a great travel lens.
It's sharp too.
I love the 2.8 but the F4 has its merits.
Upvote
0
