Canon 70-200mm 1:4, how good it is?

[raffal]

Canon 70-200mm 1:4, how good this lens is?;-) is way cheaper than newer 2.8,….thamks, raf

[Ken Katz]

The EF 70-200 f4L is an excellent lens.  The IS version is even better optically than the original, even when using the Canon 1.4x converter.  I have owned both, but I don't have an opinion about the Mk II version of this lens.  For me it's not the price that mattered between the f4 and f2.8 L lenses, but mostly the weight difference.

[mikemorrellNL]

I've owned the EF 70-200  f/2.8 for about 20 years. The optical and build quality is superb. It's one of the 2 lenses I take everywhere. The other being a 35mm- 70mm lens.

When I first bought it, I wanted a 'zoom lens 'for my Canon 40D and the shop assistant recommended the EF 70-200  f/2.8. At the time, I didn't really need an 'L' lens but I've had no regrets. My Canon 40D had an ISO range of ISO 100–1600 (3200 at a push). So I was pleased to have a 'fixed, wide aperture lens' for low-light situations.

But times have moved on. I currently use a Canon 5D mv iv with an ISO range of 100-12800. Which means that I much more often dial up the ISO rather than dialing down the aperture to 2.8.  Yes, some portraits have minimally more separation at 2.8 than 4.0 but you need to consider how much value that would be have to you. And what the worth of 2 stops of extra light would be.

TBH. if I was now to choose between the f/4 and f/2.8 based on current ISO capabilities, I think I'd go for the f/4. 

Success!

[hjoseph7]

I have owned the EF 70-200 f2.8 which was a beast of a lens with virtually no faults when it came to optics. Even wide open at f2.8 it took great pictures. The only thing I had against it was that it was big, heavy and obtrusive. As soon as you placed this thing on your camera, every body thinks you  are a professional photo journalist or something. It's a very intimidating lens ! Unfortunately I had to sell it, barely used.

I then puchased the EF 70-200 F4 a few years later for about a 1/3 of the price of my f2.8. I would say it was worth it optics wise . The quality of the images were just as good as my f2.8 if not a tad sharper ! Of course this lens was not only smaller, but lighter. Because of the weight I thought I might survive with this lens being a Non-IS at a wedding, or event, but boy was I wrong. I kept missing so many shots, especially at the longer focal lenghts that it was ridiculous.

The only way to avoid this was to put the lens on a tripod, which was not always possible. Finally,  I trade it it in for the 70-200 f4 IS  for about 1/2 the price of my original f2.8.  To me, if you don't need to shoot at the wider  f2.8,  the f4 will do almost everything its big brother can optically. You can still get great Bokeh because it's a long lens, although you might not be able to get that razor-thin DOP Hollywood look you get by shooting at f2.8 . One thing,  the IS on the f4 is noisy and makes a a weird whirling sound that can get annoying in quiet venues, but at least you know it's working. I don't mind the weird sound,  because at least I come home with more Keepers. Regardless it's a spectacular lens, one of Canon's best. Mine came without a Tripod Mount, so I had to get a cheap clone off eBay. A new one will cost you about $80 from Canon.  

Edited January 28 by hjoseph7

[paddler4]

By 1:4, do you mean f/4? If so:

I've owned both the first generation and the second generation 70-200 f/4 L lenses. Both are excellent. The current II is truly a superb lens. In fact, I bought it because there was a rumor that it was one of the EF lenses that would be discontinued, and I wanted to buy one before they disappeared. That apparently didn't happen; they are still available at retailers. It's so good that I kept it when I switched to mirrorless and use it with an RF adapter. 

it is NOT the case that the f/2.8 is a better lens. It's just one stop faster. And the cost of that, when I bought mine (the RF specs are different) was that the f/2.8 was twice the price, twice the weight, and a lot bulkier. On a telephoto, I never need the slightly narrower DOF f/2.8 offers, and in the very rare cases where I need the extra stop, I just boost ISO by one stop. On modern cameras, a one stop increase in ISO is not a big deal. So for me, the f/4 was clearly the superior choice. I've had one or the other of these lenses for a long time, probably well over a decade, and I've never once regretted not buying the f/2.8. 

[raffal]

Guys thank you !- excellent info! Appreciated 

[JDMvW]

In such cases the older version is often far better than good enough. You can save a lot by going to new version minus 1.

[paddler4]

In this case, more than good enough, if it's in mint condition. The original 70-200 f/4 L was a superb lens.

[david_henderson]

I've had the original 70-200F4L   since I started with digital photography in 2008. , along with other L zooms.  It is without a doubt the best lens I own & has caused no problems since I bought it.  It is notably superior to the 24-105 L I bought at the same time