# purchasing 70-200 f4 IS now?



## ATC (Jun 2, 2014)

I am planning on buying a Canon 70-200 f4 IS sometime this year. Do you guys who have been following these things longer than I have, think that now is a good time to buy? $200 rebate from "retail" from B&H for $1149.

Or do you expect better deals later around the holidays? I've seen the lens for $1049 from B&H in the past with no rebate, but am unsure on when to act. TIA


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 2, 2014)

ATC said:


> I am planning on buying a Canon 70-200 f4 IS sometime this year. Do you guys who have been following these things longer than I have, think that now is a good time to buy? $200 rebate from "retail" from B&H for $1149.
> 
> Or do you expect better deals later around the holidays? I've seen the lens for $1049 from B&H in the past with no rebate, but am unsure on when to act. TIA


The current price is pretty good and it's a great lens that I can highly recommend. The holidays are generally best, if you can wait. See price history at the bottom of this page:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00209/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f4L-IS-USM-price.html


----------



## ATC (Jun 2, 2014)

Thanks Mackguyver, no problem waiting until the holidays. I did not have the canonpricewatch web site, and I appreciate the answer a lot.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 2, 2014)

you may want to wait a bit longer, since it is said to be updated very soon.
I have it and also Sony Nikon 70-200mm f4G lenses and I compared them side by side many times, in absolute term the Canon f4LIS is still a good lens but it shows its age compared to the Sony and the Nikon,espeically to the Sony.
and imho, the Canon f4LIS and Nikon f4VR are overpriced compared to the excellent Sony 70-200mm f4 SSM , the Sony comes with tripod mount and it is about 100US cheaper than the optically inferior Canon f4 70-200mm and the Optically as good but heavier Nikon..
I tested them all on my A7R and see the differences, the Sony was clearly sharper than the other 2 at 70 , 100, 135mm wide open , but at 200mm end , the Nikon was the better lens at f4 , but stopping down to f6.3 , the Sony becomes better than the other 2 again. I also compared the build quality of the 3 lenses, to me the Sony seems better made lens but a bit bigger than the Canon, the biggest one is the Nikon f4 and it is a bit longer than the Canon and the Sony. But honestly I prefer the look of the Nikon lens since it is black and less conspicuous in public. but if do not care about the color of the lens, but only optical quality and AF accuracy , then the Sony wins hands down here. and after comparing the 3 , I am quite sure, the Sony and Nikon 70-200mm f4 are quite a bit better than the Canon one, and I am sure Canon must update it with better IS and better anti-flare coating very soon to be competitive. the Nikon has almost 5 stop effective VR , and it focuses very very close, so personally I do not buy the Canon f4 70-200mm IS lens now , and I do not need f2.8 any more in this range(I use the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO instead). So if I need the best 70-200mm f4 zoom now , I will go Sony or Nikon. If you can wait , wait a few months , I am quite sure we will see a new 70-200mm f4LIS lens from Canon at Photokina(it does not mean we can actually buy it very soon , though).
All that having said , the best 70-200mm zoom is the Canon 70-200mm f2.8LISMK2 USM lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 2, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> you may want to wait a bit longer, since it is said to be updated very soon.
> I have it and also Sony Nikon 70-200mm f4G lenses and I compared them side by side many times, in absolute term the Canon f4LIS is still a good lens but it shows its age compared to the Sony and the Nikon,espeically to the Sony.
> and imho, the Canon f4LIS and Nikon f4VR are overpriced compared to the excellent Sony 70-200mm f4 SSM , the Sony comes with tripod mount and it is about 100US cheaper than the optically inferior Canon f4 70-200mm and the Optically as good but heavier Nikon..
> I tested them all on my A7R and see the differences, the Sony was clearly sharper than the other 2 at 70 , 100, 135mm wide open , but at 200mm end , the Nikon was the better lens at f4 , but stopping down to f6.3 , the Sony becomes better than the other 2 again. I also compared the build quality of the 3 lenses, to me the Sony seems better made lens but a bit bigger than the Canon, the biggest one is the Nikon f4 and it is a bit longer than the Canon and the Sony. But honestly I prefer the look of the Nikon lens since it is black and less conspicuous in public. but if do not care about the color of the lens, but only optical quality and AF accuracy , then the Sony wins hands down here. and after comparing the 3 , I am quite sure, the Sony and Nikon 70-200mm f4 are quite a bit better than the Canon one, and I am sure Canon must update it with better IS and better anti-flare coating very soon to be competitive. the Nikon has almost 5 stop effective VR , and it focuses very very close, so personally I do not buy the Canon f4 70-200mm IS lens now , and I do not need f2.8 any more in this range(I use the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO instead). So if I need the best 70-200mm f4 zoom now , I will go Sony or Nikon. If you can wait , wait a few months , I am quite sure we will see a new 70-200mm f4LIS lens from Canon at Photokina(it does not mean we can actually buy it very soon , though).
> All that having said , the best 70-200mm zoom is the Canon 70-200mm f2.8LISMK2 USM lens.


Your post sounds like that of a lens snob - this is one of Canon's best lenses and other than the aperture being slower than the f/2.8 versions, I have yet to hear anyone complain about this lens. Besides, there are exactly zero rumors (on CR) about this lens being replaced so I don't know what you're talking about. 

ATC, this is a phenomenal lens, you won't be disappointed with it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > you may want to wait a bit longer, since it is said to be updated very soon.
> ...



This lens is ALMOST as sharp as the 2.8IS version.... They are so close that with the lens to lens variations one would expect to see, they almost certainly overlap. It is a phenomenal lens, quite possibly the best " bang for the buck" of any canon lens. You would need laboratory testing with test charts to tell the images from the F2.8IS version, yet at half the price and weight it is a lot easier to afford and much much easier to carry and to operate. That extra 2/3 of a stop comes at a big hit in weight and dollars.


----------



## ATC (Jun 2, 2014)

Thanks all. 

I plan on remaining with my choice of the Canon 70-200 f4. I can wait for the holidays, but the price now is not bad either. 

Everything I have read from lens testers say that it compares with the Canon 70-200 f2.8. Good enough for me.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 2, 2014)

It's a great lens, I owned one for a while before deciding to move to the 200mm f/2.8 (I was moslty using the long end anyway)

If you want an even cheaper price, you might consider the used market. It's a lens that shows up fairly frequently in near-new condition with really great prices. Often from people doing the same thing as me (deciding between f/4 and f/2.8, or prime v zoom)


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jun 2, 2014)

I really don't know why they would update it but who knows. It's an amazing lens. The latest IS system. Niggling between the Sony and the Nikon and Canon is like counting flecks of dust to pass the time. Every review in history says it's amazing. Mine is great. I'd say get one now if you need one. If you're in the States I'd highly recommend buying refurb off the Canon store website, but wait for one of their 15-20% off refurb sales and keep a watch out for stock to come in. You can probably get it for $900. Full warranty, good as new.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> I really don't know why they would update it but who knows. It's an amazing lens. The latest IS system. Niggling between the Sony and the Nikon and Canon is like counting flecks of dust to pass the time. Every review in history says it's amazing. Mine is great. I'd say get one now if you need one. If you're in the States I'd highly recommend buying refurb off the Canon store website, but wait for one of their 15-20% off refurb sales and keep a watch out for stock to come in. You can probably get it for $900. Full warranty, good as new.



+1

lens is only 8 years old. It had rave reviews.

Photozone
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=2

_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._


Slrgear, also says it is as good as L primes.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

_It isn't easy to improve on an almost flawless lens like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, unless you add 4-stop Image Stabilization without degrading any of the optical or build qualities. This lens tests and performs as well, or better than, any lens tested recently. It is quite sharp across its entire aperture-focal length spectrum; chromatic aberration, vignetting, and distortion are all quite reasonable; focusing is fast and accurate; the build is L-class; and the new 4-stop image stabilization is downright startling in its effectiveness._

Even Saint Ken loves it:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm

_The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS is just about the sharpest zoom I've ever used, exceeded only slightly by the 70-200/2.8 L IS II. Not only that, but the ergonomics and operation are flawless, so flawless that I can shoot and zoom with only one hand. 
Of all the Canon Teles, as of June 2014, this is one I own and use the most. 
_


----------



## Jemlnlx (Jun 2, 2014)

Great lens, you will not regret your purchase. I have had mine for years and love it. Have you considered buying it used? You can probably snag one is good condition with box and all for about $850-900. I believe I got mine at $865, at the time the lens was about 2 years old.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 2, 2014)

ATC said:


> Thanks all.
> 
> I plan on remaining with my choice of the Canon 70-200 f4. I can wait for the holidays, but the price now is not bad either.
> 
> Everything I have read from lens testers say that it compares with the Canon 70-200 f2.8. Good enough for me.



Since you can wait, sign up for an email notification from Canon Price Watch. You can request notification for a refurbished lens and watch the sales. About every two-three months the Canon Refurb store has a 15% off sale on lenses and this one is frequently available (more so than the f2.8 version). Also, at Canon Price Watch you can set a notification for a new lens and set the price you want to be notified at -- then if it becomes available at or below that price, they'll send you an email.


----------



## Robert Welch (Jun 2, 2014)

I have this lens and also the 2.8 IS first version. I was weighing my options of getting the 2.8 vII or the f/4 IS and decided to get the latter for the savings in weight. I don't need f/2.8 very often, and when I do I still have the older lens. It does fine for that purpose, especially beyond 135mm. The f/4 is sharper though, and so much easier to use, so it's my go to lens otherwise.

If you don't need faster than f/4, then it's for sure the best short tele-zoom lens to get.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2014)

Its as fine lens, I loved mine, but bought the 2.8 version and sold the f/4. You will love it.


----------



## Joe M (Jun 3, 2014)

The only fault with this lens is it's not F2.8.  I can live with that and if you can, you'll be picking up one of the greatest lenses ever made. I've personally never been unhappy with anything photographed with this lens. In fact, it's the personal favourite of my wife when she's shooting wedding candids or when we are just out and about. Focus for me has always been quick and accurate, images have a great quality and sharp as you will ever need, so the only update I can imagine Canon tweaking might be the IS but I don't even have any complaints about it either. Whenever you happen to pick one up, enjoy it.


----------



## PhotoConceptsDT (Jun 3, 2014)

ATC said:


> Thanks all.
> 
> I plan on remaining with my choice of the Canon 70-200 f4. I can wait for the holidays, but the price now is not bad either.
> 
> Everything I have read from lens testers say that it compares with the Canon 70-200 f2.8. Good enough for me.



The 70-200 F4L is an absolutely superb lens. One of my favourites. It is quite sharp and if you don't plan on using your indoors all the time, F4 is more than enough. I do a bit of wildlife and also use the 1.4X extender. I include two examples where I am using the 70-200 F4L with the 1.4X. A bit of sharpening in post and you are good to go...

I say if you have the money now, go for it and enjoy the summer months. If you wait until the Holiday season for a sale, you may miss out on some opportunities in the meantime.



Mountsberg - 5 by ConceptsbyDT, on Flickr



Mountsberg - 9 by ConceptsbyDT, on Flickr


----------



## Radiating (Jun 3, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> you may want to wait a bit longer, since it is said to be updated very soon.
> I have it and also Sony Nikon 70-200mm f4G lenses and I compared them side by side many times, in absolute term the Canon f4LIS is still a good lens but it shows its age compared to the Sony and the Nikon,espeically to the Sony.
> and imho, the Canon f4LIS and Nikon f4VR are overpriced compared to the excellent Sony 70-200mm f4 SSM , the Sony comes with tripod mount and it is about 100US cheaper than the optically inferior Canon f4 70-200mm and the Optically as good but heavier Nikon..
> I tested them all on my A7R and see the differences, the Sony was clearly sharper than the other 2 at 70 , 100, 135mm wide open , but at 200mm end , the Nikon was the better lens at f4 , but stopping down to f6.3 , the Sony becomes better than the other 2 again. I also compared the build quality of the 3 lenses, to me the Sony seems better made lens but a bit bigger than the Canon, the biggest one is the Nikon f4 and it is a bit longer than the Canon and the Sony. But honestly I prefer the look of the Nikon lens since it is black and less conspicuous in public. but if do not care about the color of the lens, but only optical quality and AF accuracy , then the Sony wins hands down here. and after comparing the 3 , I am quite sure, the Sony and Nikon 70-200mm f4 are quite a bit better than the Canon one, and I am sure Canon must update it with better IS and better anti-flare coating very soon to be competitive. the Nikon has almost 5 stop effective VR , and it focuses very very close, so personally I do not buy the Canon f4 70-200mm IS lens now , and I do not need f2.8 any more in this range(I use the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO instead). So if I need the best 70-200mm f4 zoom now , I will go Sony or Nikon. If you can wait , wait a few months , I am quite sure we will see a new 70-200mm f4LIS lens from Canon at Photokina(it does not mean we can actually buy it very soon , though).
> All that having said , the best 70-200mm zoom is the Canon 70-200mm f2.8LISMK2 USM lens.



Your post seems a bit off. There is a known issue with the A7R causing significant image quality degradation when lenses are adapted to it (ie not native FE mount). My guess is you are experiencing this issue seeing as you are comparing a native lens versus two adapted ones and finding some of the best lenses in the world to be noticeably worse than everyone else has measured them to be.

According to multiple sources the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 IS is noticeably sharper wide open than the 70-200mm f4 designed for the A7R. So if you are seeing the opposite, it's a problem with your setup.

For example if you look at DXO mark's raw data, it shows that in their field map measurements the Canon is 13% sharper overall and 28% sharper in the mid frame than the s]Sony on average across the zoom range at F/4.0. 

Anyways, the 70-200mm F4.0 IS worth getting. It is the most flawless EF mount zoom lens that is made at any focal length by any manufacturer period. To start off with it's one of the top 15 sharpest lenses that exist for average wide open sharpness. Nevermind zoom lenses, it competes with primes. It also has next to zero aberrations of any kind. It's big brother, for example is not parafocal which makes it a problem to use for video (you can't zoom while shooting without focus correction), it has noticeably worse and more busy bokeh transitions and less smoothness, more spherical aberrations, coma, field curvature, CA, loca, etc etc. You get the same sort of difference when comparing most other pro zoom lenses to the F4.0 IS. Most pro zoom lenses are good at being sharp and that's it, they have tons of other flaws. The 70-200mm f/4.0 IS is unlike almost any other zoom, in that it just doesn't have significant aberrations of any kind. That's a very rare trait.


----------



## Wayward (Jun 3, 2014)

Having snooped in this forum for quite some time, I'd like to make my first post here. This is appropriate, for me, because this was also the first lens I ever purchased and the one that I still hold as the standard to which I compare any new glass that I obtain.

That being said, this lens is just as fantastic as many other members make it out to be. Color rendition is simply phenomenal, contrast is excellent, the IS allows shooting in low light (assuming little subject motion) with ease, and the weight and size difference from the 2.8 version is simply stunning when compared side by side. It seems like you've made up your mind already based on your earlier posts but let me assure you--you have made an excellent choice and will surely not be disappointed!


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 3, 2014)

I won't comment on when to pull the trigger to buy. 

I will comment on the lens itself. I have both the 2.8II and the f1.4L is. I prefer the latter for travel. It gives me great iq, is much easier to carry due to size/wt vs the 2.8 (and where weight is a limitation, this may mean you can pack another lens or body). I love this lens. If I had to sell one, it would be the 2.8.


sek


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > MLfan3 said:
> ...



My copy, which I really regret selling was slightly sharper than my 2.8 II L. But i suspect that my f4 LIS was a super-stellar copy. My 2.8 II L a typical copy and nice and sharp. I found the f4 LIS to be a better performer at MFD than the 2.8, it's astonishingly lightweight and it's IS is a little noiser than the f2.8 II L but performs just as well. It takes a 1.4x TC well. Just because it's comparitvely old doesn't negate it's abilities. If fact, i think the f2.8 II L was designed to bring the f2.8 version up to the f4 LIS's technology and abilities. They both share the same AF speed, IS ability etc. 
This lens is one of Canon's finest, period. Anyone who says different either has a pup / damaged copy or they don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## ATC (Jun 3, 2014)

Thanks again to everyone,

Still wrestling with when to buy the lens, but I'm positive which lens it will be. 

I will normally be using it for travel and landscapes, so I think the f4 will not be a problem.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jun 4, 2014)

scottkinfw said:


> I won't comment on when to pull the trigger to buy.
> 
> I will comment on the lens itself. I have both the 2.8II and the f1.4L is. I prefer the latter for travel. It gives me great iq, is much easier to carry due to size/wt vs the 2.8 (and where weight is a limitation, this may mean you can pack another lens or body). I love this lens. If I had to sell one, it would be the 2.8.
> 
> sek



Here's whom to listen to, someone who has both and has tested them for travel.


----------

