# Just the MTF Charts: 70-200mm f/4 Zoom Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 23, 2019)

> Lensrentals.com continues to release new MTF charts for various prime and zoom lenses. This time, they test 70-200mm f/4 lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM does extremely well.
> *From Roger:*
> The conclusions here are pretty simple. If you shoot (or adapt) Canon EF mount lenses the Version II Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS II is excellent. It’s so good that you should only buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 version if you need f/2.8. (Since lots of people want the narrower f/2.8 depth of field for portraits or need all the light they can get for stop-motion action photography, the f/2.8 still will have lots of takers.)...



Continue reading...


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 23, 2019)

It can be had for some nice pricing right now. Tempting, but the 2.8 adds that flexibility for nice portrait work.


----------



## sdz (Jul 23, 2019)

I like the f/4 II. I have fast primes for bokeh effects.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 24, 2019)

One for the studio, one for the street!

Thank you, Roger, for so much real news and info.


----------



## robburrito (Jul 24, 2019)

The f4 link brings you to the f 2.8 version.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 24, 2019)

Many thanks to Roger Cicala for doing these comparisons.

They make me confident, that my EF 4.0 70-200 i is not the worst choice because I use it most of the time @200mm. And I bought a 1 year old copy in nearly unused condition three years ago for 600 bucks.
But I know and will keep in mind if I use it with a high res (APS-C) camera the version ii might be a tad better @200mm and substantially better at the lower end so maybe I will upgrade later. But for the moment I am relaxed and just that was worth the reading!


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 24, 2019)

I can only confirm: this lens (70-200 f 4 version II) is absolutely brilliant!


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 24, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Many thanks to Roger Cicala for doing these comparisons.
> 
> They make me confident, that my EF 4.0 70-200 i is not the worst choice because I use it most of the time @200mm. And I bought a 1 year old copy in nearly unused condition three years ago for 600 bucks.
> But I know and will keep in mind if I use it with a high res (APS-C) camera the version ii might be a tad better @200mm and substantially better at the lower end so maybe I will upgrade later. But for the moment I am relaxed and just that was worth the reading!



My 70-200 F4L (non IS) has developed a problem in the manual focus ring, it slips between the middle two thirds of the range. Autofocus is still perfect. These MTF charts give me confidence that the 70-200F4L IS II will give me sharper images at 200mm when I get round to replace the old one.


----------



## Stuart (Jul 24, 2019)

Did i miss something, is there a single MTF overlay chart comparing Canon/Nikon/Sony etc.

Cheers
Stuart


----------



## Ale_F (Jul 24, 2019)

The focus slip affect most of the IS mkI version and some non IS version (rare). Practically is a lab - forum joke, because I never seen a problem with AF in real life. I also tried a very bad lens but in AF it still works. The only problem I found is in a perfect vertical position with a very bad lens. I think this is one of the reason for the building of the mkII version.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 24, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> The focus slip affect most of the IS mkI version and some non IS version (rare). Practically is a lab - forum joke, because I never seen a problem with AF in real life. I also tried a very bad lens but in AF it still works. The only problem I found is in a perfect vertical position with a very bad lens. I think this is one of the reason for the building of the mkII version.



Aha! With the lens a horizontal position it's not that severe, but I tested it in a almost completely vertical position so I could run the focus down a 3 meter long chain that holds the lights. I was lying flat on the ground to get the most distance to the ceiling, which is about 5.5m/18ft high.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 24, 2019)

Looks fantastic, I use my 70-200mm f4.0 a lot when I want a lighter lens than the 300 f2.8. I find I only use it at 200mm so I think rather than upgrade to this, I'll go for the 200mm f2.8 (which I wish had IS).


----------



## Berowne (Jul 24, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Did i miss something, is there a single MTF overlay chart comparing Canon/Nikon/Sony etc.
> 
> Cheers
> Stuart



Roger does'nt make overlay-charts. He shows the comparisons in mirror charts, for instance canon to the right and Nikon to the left.


----------



## ColinJR (Jul 24, 2019)

I don't think it's emphasized enough how much lighter the f/4 is compared to the f/2.8... That's why I chose it! (that and, uh, less money).


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 25, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> My 70-200 F4L (non IS) has developed a problem in the manual focus ring, it slips between the middle two thirds of the range. Autofocus is still perfect. These MTF charts give me confidence that the 70-200F4L IS II will give me sharper images at 200mm when I get round to replace the old one.



I replaced the old non-IS variant which was great for 8 or 10 MPix cameras (APS-C) with the IS version mark i and it's a vast difference on 24 MPix sensors: The images are much crisper and the flare resistance (was a problem in a lot of photos for ME) is vastly improved:








Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens Flare Test Results


Review flare test results for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens and compare the performance of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





So while the manual focus problem of your lens is a pitty you will profit vastly from the IS versions overall IQ advantage + the IS system which gives you additional sharpness/contrast with the same shutter speeds!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 25, 2019)

I sold my 70-200mm f/4 L IS but kept my EF-S 55-250mm STM because it was sharper on my M5 but also because my 100-400mm II at 200mm was much sharper on FF. If you don't believe me, look at these charts from lensrentals (the top from lensrentals 4 years ago https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests/where they wrote: "
_Both the MTF and Consistency scores are just outstanding. The 100-400 has some of the highest consistency scores of any zoom lens we’ve ever tested. It waxes the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens, for example, having far less copy-to-copy variation.

To give you an idea of just how excellent the MTF is on this lens, I’ll put the MTF of the 100-400 IS Mk II side-by-side with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens. Now remember, the 100-400 has the advantage of being shot at f/5 here. The 70-200 f/2.8 would have better MTF curves stopped down. The point here is that the 100-400, while not able to compete in aperture with the 70-200, certainly does compete in resolution. And the 70-200 IS II is one of the sharpest zooms made."



_


----------



## bod (Jul 25, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> I don't think it's emphasized enough how much lighter the f/4 is compared to the f/2.8... That's why I chose it! (that and, uh, less money).


I agree. The light weight of the f4 zoom combined with its excellent IQ is the reason I have it rather than the f2.8.
Also I would highlight the shorter MFD of the f4 IS II which was the primary reason that caused me to upgrade from the f4 IS I.


----------



## Tmjc.wolf (Jul 25, 2019)

I am debating on getting the 70-200 f4 is or the 70-300 IS USM ii. I want a general telephoto lens especially for landscapes and sports (Mountainbiking) but maybe also some wildlife if I run across it. Which would you choose?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 25, 2019)

Tmjc.wolf said:


> I am debating on getting the 70-200 f4 is or the 70-300 IS USM ii. I want a general telephoto lens especially for landscapes and sports (Mountainbiking) but maybe also some wildlife if I run across it. Which would you choose?



I would go for the 70-300 if wildlife is even remotely involved. 200 is just too short for most subjects fox sized and below.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Jul 26, 2019)

In conclusion buy them both....... the F4 for during the day and walk-around, the f2.8 for indoors, portraits, sports and low light.. Is my distillation of his recommendations correct?


----------



## avoidingconcrete (Nov 6, 2019)

I had the 2.8 and sold it for the f/4 ii and can confirm, the sharpness is unreal. As I do landscapes primarily and have the 135/2 for portraits, the weight savings and improved IQ makes the f/4 a must have over the 2.8 for long hikes and landscape shots! The $ savings is nice too


----------

