# Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by Dustin Abbott



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 6, 2018)

> Dustin Abbott has completed his extensive review of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II.  You can check the video above, or read the entire review here.
> It seems like most reviewers, Dustin discovered that the updates are for the most part incremental, and not a revolutionary step forward. However, the sum of the incremental updates make the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II a worthy upgrade for most shooters if you’re using the non-IS or first IS version of this lens.
> Some have questioned whether this lens is a worthy upgrade, if enough has changed. If you are looking for a revolutionary improvement over the previous generation lens (perhaps considering updating), that might be a hard choice, but there is no doubt that this is a significantly improved lens on a number of levels. The build is improved, the autofocus is improved, and the image quality is improved. There is no single thing that jumps out at you, but the sum total of the improvements add up to what I believe is the best f/4 lens...



Continue reading...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 6, 2018)

P.S. It plays very nicely with the Canon 1.4x TC (III). Still very sharp.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 6, 2018)

> Dustin Abbott has completed his extensive review of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II.  You can check the video above, or read the entire review here.
> It seems like most reviewers, Dustin discovered that the updates are for the most part incremental, and a revolutionary step forward. However, the sum of the incremental updates make the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II a worthy upgrade for most shooters if you’re using the non-IS or first IS version of this lens.
> Some have questioned whether this lens is a worthy upgrade, if enough has changed. If you are looking for a revolutionary improvement over the previous generation lens (perhaps considering updating), that might be a hard choice, but there is no doubt that this is a significantly improved lens on a number of levels. The build is improved, the autofocus is improved, and the image quality is improved. There is no single thing that jumps out at you, but the sum total of the improvements add up to what I believe is the best f/4 lens that...



Continue reading...


----------



## jcfalconer (Aug 7, 2018)

"... Dustin discovered that the updates are for the most part incremental, and a revolutionary step forward."

In this statement I presume from the context that there is a missing modifier to the word *revolutionary*, such as *not*?


----------



## slclick (Aug 7, 2018)

jcfalconer said:


> "... Dustin discovered that the updates are for the most part incremental, and a revolutionary step forward."
> 
> In this statement I presume from the context that there is a missing modifier to the word *revolutionary*, such as *not*?


Exactly, Dustin did not word it that way. Good Review.


----------



## jcfalconer (Aug 7, 2018)

Just purchased this lens and really enjoyed walking around with it on a 6D. Great color and sharpness. Feels downright miniature compared to the 70-200 F/2.8 L II.
View media item 23


----------



## jalbfb (Aug 7, 2018)

I just sold my 6 yr old Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II which just about covered the cost of the new f4 II. I got tired of carrying around the much heavier f2.8. And when I looked at the metadata info on all of my pictures I took over the past 6 years with the f2.8 I was shocked at the small amount of photos I took at f2.8. Weight was a huge factor for me.The IQ, 5 stop IS and weight coupled with the photograpahy that I mostly do made the decision for me a no-brainer.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2018)

Grey stone walls for image quality testing? Why not pin some charts across them so we can read off easily the differences in resolution and edge sharpness, which we can't do from those blocks, and note any astigmatism etc.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 7, 2018)

I own the f/2.8 and it is incredible but I also have an f/4 IS V 1, which was my first "big white." The f/2.8 monster is a "go to" but too heavy for travel. That's where the f/4 can be the ideal tool. Great review but I am not sure there is enough there for me to upgrade from V 1


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 8, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Grey stone walls for image quality testing? Why not pin some charts across them so we can read off easily the differences in resolution and edge sharpness, which we can't do from those blocks, and note any astigmatism etc.



I find a three dimensional object much more telling for things like longitudinal chromatic aberration and for determining microcontrast.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 8, 2018)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I find a three dimensional object much more telling for things like longitudinal chromatic aberration and for determining microcontrast.



That grey stone wall is virtually two-dimensional and doesn't have fine detail on it. And it is much easier to see chromatic aberration when you have high contrast black on white rather than a near monotone grey.


----------



## slclick (Aug 8, 2018)

Jewelry and autos are great for CA


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 11, 2018)

Great review I thought. I might be tempted. I love the 70-200 II 2.8 but its had a battering over its life time. The F4 is very light in comparison


----------



## Durf (Aug 11, 2018)

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens does the trick for me! (especially on a crop camera) awesome lens.
Being used to this extra reach of 300mm, its awesome IQ, and compact size, I don't think I'd ever use a 70-200mm much even if it was given to me.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 13, 2018)

AlanF said:


> That grey stone wall is virtually two-dimensional and doesn't have fine detail on it. And it is much easier to see chromatic aberration when you have high contrast black on white rather than a near monotone grey.



That may well be your opinion, but that hasn't been my experience over doing well over 100 reviews. Using this technique has revealed truths that test charts have not.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 13, 2018)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> That may well be your opinion, but that hasn't been my experience over doing well over 100 reviews. Using this technique has revealed truths that test charts have not.



There is major lopsided distortion in the lens, you held it at an odd angle or the wall was laid by drunk masons. I agree with AlanF on this one, the chart would be more telling and we would know the chart wasn't made by an inebriated brick tender.


----------

