The 70-200 lens is a staple in most pro photographer’s diet. The photographic possibilities with that focal are wide ranging and Canon has a 70-200 to suit almost everyone’s needs, 4 different versions in fact. The previous image stabilized version was brought out in 2001 and quickly became the new standard for such lenses. In 2010 Canon introduced the new MKII version of the lens featuring an improved 4-stop image stabilization and theoretically improved image quality. How does it stack up to the previous version and how does it compare to the 70-200 f4 L IS ? Read on to find out more…..
First a little personal 70-200 history. When I first made the jump into professional photography I picked up a 70-200 2.8 L IS and a Canon 1MKIIN. I was blown away by what I could create with that combination and it was by far my most used lens. Landscape, portrait, sports it could do it all. One thing I realized though was that I was very rarely using the lens wide open as the majority of my shots were outdoors. When Canon released the 70-200 f4 L IS in 2006 I watched the reviews flood in and was surprised to see that almost unanimously people found the image quality to be greater on the 4 L IS version. Seeings as I did not feel the need for f2.8, I sold mine and purchased the f4 L IS version to save some considerable weight in my pack. For the last few years the little f4 IS lens has taken over the role as my most used lens and done me proud. I’m continually amazed by the quality of the shots it produces from such a small package. When Canon announced the new MKII f2.8 though I was curious to see if the improvements featured in the f4 IS had been carried over, and if the MKII really justified the heavy price increase that came with it. I was able to borrow the lens for some time to see how it performed, and see if there was room again for the f2.8 version back in my pack.
Left to right: 70-200 f4 L IS , 70-200 f2.8 L ISII , 300mm f4 L IS
Physical changes
Physically there is a huge difference between the f4 and f2.8 versions of this lens. The f2.8 weighs in at 1490g and the f4 almost exactly half that at 760g. The f2.8 is slightly longer but I find the difference in diameter makes far more difference in my pack. The new MKII f2.8 feels better built than the f4 IS and the first version of the f2.8 IS, with a much sturdier feel and resistance to the focus and zoom rings. The f2.8 also features a much wider focus ring than the 2001 MKI version and comes in at 180g heavier than its predecessor. The increase in weight is something I’m definitely not a fan of though especially when you see Canon making such huge efforts to decrease the weight of some of their other new lenses like the 400mm f2.8 IS II. I was really surprised that they felt it necessary for a 12% increase. The new 300mm f2.8 is 8% lighter and they made a big deal about that!
The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II comes with a dedicated lens case and lens hood.
Another physical difference from the earlier version is the lens hood (ET-87). It now features the textured look that Canon has adopted for their hoods, helping increase resistance to scratches and decrease reflections. There is also a small push button that locks the hood into place. As before it mounts by rotating it into position, but to release it you must now depress the small button. It feels solid and I think this is a nice addition for people shooting in frantic places where lens hoods might get dislodged by a crowd.
Image Stabilization
The MKII also features an improved IS system. The previous version contained a 3-stop IS and is replaced here with the new 4-stop version. On top of this gain in hand-hold-ability, the new IS is also much quieter than both the original MKI version and also that which is in the f4 IS lens. For stills photos this is not much of a consideration for me but for video shooters out there it might well be. The controls on the side of the lens remain unchanged though with a focus range limiter switch and option to select either IS mode 1 or 2. As before, mode 1 is for general usage in low light and mode 2 is for controlling camera motion in one direction while you are panning with your subject. IS in the modern lenses is so good that there is no real need to go into huge details about what it can do. Suffice to say that it works and it works well. There have been many many times when IS has allowed me to get a shot at a low shutter speed that otherwise would not have worked. I’m a firm believer that it is worth every penny over the non-IS version.
70-200 f2.8 L IS II – MTF Charts
So how did the lens perform in testing then ? As I had my personal 70-200 f4 L IS on hand as well I have made a few comparison shots with my usual test subject, the $5 bill. As usual, take this for what you will, I am human but I did my best to be accurate. Tripod, mirror lockup, liveview focusing, multiple images at each setting. With a zoom lens there are so many permutations so I have had to limit things somewhat but you can get a bit of an idea for some of the key f-stop and focal length combinations. These are all 100% crops of an area on a $5 bill that was set up at the minimum focus distance from this lens, 1.2m.
Test Results
70mm – Wide open the new f2.8 does a good job of resolving the detail. It’s no prime lens and images would benefit from a bit of sharpening but the results are usable with plenty of contrast. At f4 the f2.8 lens has improved considerably and the f4 IS lens has now impressively entered the fray. Considering this is wide open for the f4IS lens it makes a very impressive entrance and is very nearly as sharp as the f2.8 at that aperture. It is much sharper than the f2.8IS was at it’s wide open setting. At f8 things are almost neck and neck, if anything the f4IS lens actually seems to have the edge. F16 and F32 are considerably and equally effected by diffraction at the 70mm length, f32 is totally unusable in my opinion.
135mm – At 135mm the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II performs similarly when wide open at f2.8 as it did at 70mm. At f4 again the f4 IS lens puts in a remarkable performance considering it is wide open and matches the sharpness of the 2.8 IS lens at the same aperture. At f8 the f4IS lens seems to be sharper than the f2.8 lens (!) though not by much and really they both put in great performances for a zoom lens at this point. Both lenses exhibit much less degradation in quality towards the smaller end of the aperture than they did at 70mm. F16 becomes totally usable and f32 might also be usable in a pinch. You can certainly stop it down much much further at mid zoom range and still get sharp images.
200mm – Wide open and fully zoomed is almost always the hardest area for a lens to perform and at 200mm the f2.8 IS puts in a surprisingly bad performance. This is something that I first noticed when I was experimenting with the new shorter MFD and shooting some flowers in my yard. The flowers all exhibited a ghosting effect that I have not seen before on any of my other lenses. In some cases it was so bad in fact that I was almost tempted to say that the lens is faulty, but it seems to perform fine in other areas. Most other real world examples fared far better than this test suggests but there is still room for improvement. High contrast subjects suffer worst, a white object on a black background for example. At f4 the image is much improved but I would still not say that it is very good. The f4 IS lens matches performance with it and is somewhat forgiven for being soft because it is wide open. For f8 , f16 and f32 things are on par once again and in fact at 200mm both lenses achieve the best performance at f32. A great improvement over f32 at 70mm.
Confused? Yep! This is the problem with zoom lenses, there is just so much going on inside the barrel that you have to take all settings into account to produce the very best image. The two most notable things I took from this test was that the 70-200 f4 L IS is pretty much just as good as the 70-200 f2.8 IS II at all available apertures. For the price of that lens it is really quite remarkable. The second surprising thing to me was the poor performance of the f2.8 IS II at 200mm, especially wide open. I haven’t seen anyone else out there comment on this so I am still somewhat confused by it. I’d like to get another lens off Canon to double check things but please chime in with comments below if you have experience with this lens. For the majority of the focal range though the f2.8 makes very usable images and they are much better than the previous version that I used to own. Bear in mind as well that most people would apply some sharpening to the images during their processing though and in real world shooting it is not nearly as noticeable. Take a look at the black and white image below for example that is shot at 200mm and f2.8. Looks just fine right ? For most uses, pixel peeping a 21MP image is overkill. It can still produce great images with those setting.
After the semi-clinical testing it was time for some real usage in my work. Having the lens for a couple of months really allowed me to integrate it into my daily shooting….. or not in some cases. Right off the bat I knew this thing was sharp but what I found interesting was that when I was packing my bag to go and shoot, there were still plenty of times when I reached for the f4 IS instead. Now some of you might be thinking WOW wait! What?! You have access to Canon’s latest and greatest $2400 lens and you aren’t going to use it? Yes ! I have far too many lenses to take them all on a shoot and each time I go out it is tailored specifically for what my subject is for the day. As you can see from the test images above, the f4 IS is plenty sharp! And while it feels like any other lens when I put it in my pack, the f2.8 feels like slotting a brick in there. I have chosen some images below from a few different situations, some from a commercial shoot for the ski resort Whistler Blackcomb, some from some journalistic work at the mountain bike festival Crankworx and a couple more extras that I felt illustrated some useful points.
Canon 1D MKIV + 70-200 f2.8 L IS II
1/1000 f8 ISO500 @123mm
1/1000 f9 ISO320 @70mm
1/5000 f4.0 ISO500
1/2000 f2.8 ISO100 @200mm
1/1000 f2.8 ISO1250
The minimum focus distance for the MKII lens is 47.2″ which is a considerable improvement over the 59.1″ of the older version. If you like to shoot a lot of close up nature photos then that 12″ will make a big difference. You can really get in there and pick up some nice details with this lens. Check out the two photos below.
1/500 f8 ISO1200
1/160 f10 ISO1600 @150mm
Conclusion
From a build quality point of view this is one of the best built, most solid lenses out there. It really feels like it will last you a lifetime of daily use and is in the same league as the 300mm f2.8 and other super tele lenses. From an image quality point of view it is also the best performing zoom lens that I have used but produces drastically different results in different areas. Vignetting wide open at 70mm is minimal and MUCH improved over the first version of this lens especially on a full frame body and is better than the f4 IS. At 200mm vignetting is slightly more pronounced but seems to be all but gone by the time you stop down to f5.6. Chromatic aberration seems to be well controlled throughout the range, but there is the issue of poor sharpness and ghosting wide open in some situations at 200mm. I did not notice it in the majority of situations but it did rear its head in a few cases and for some reason it suffered badly in my test shots of the $5 bill making it look far worse there than it appeared in real world shooting. Users of the original 70-200 2.8 IS will know that it is somewhat susceptible to lens flare with backlit subjects and direct light sources aimed at it. The new coatings that are applied to modern lenses have gone a long way to combat this problem and I didn’t have a single case of weird flare artifacts on my images. Its hard for me to judge AF speed against the old one as I never used it on a MKIV but suffice to say AF speed is blindingly quick and a tiny bit faster than on the f4 IS.
So would I recommend this lens despite the couple of flaws that are noted ? ABSOLUTELY YES. Am I going to keep it for my work? No, not for now. What I found was that for the majority of my shooting and subject matter I still did not prefer the f2.8 over the f4 version simply because of the weight difference. At the same apertures, the two lenses are almost identical in performance. So the choice between the two just comes down to your need for the wider f2.8 aperture or the weight saving of f4. Who needs f2.8 then ? Lots of people! For indoor sports the faster shutter speed at f2.8 will be well worth the extra money and bulk. For me though, the best use of this lens is for wedding shooters, photojournalists and event photographers. All these categories of shooting demand a versatile lens that can be used indoors and outdoors very quickly. Covering the Crankworx bike festival in a journalistic capacity really showed me the benefits of having the wider aperture and I found myself using an aperture between f2.8 and f4 all the time. The isolating DOF at these apertures is great for story telling in your images and normally I would be happy to achieve this by switching about my prime lenses, but when time is of the essence and an event is unfolding right in front of you there is just no time for swapping glass. For landscape shooters I still maintain that the f4 IS is the better choice. At higher apertures there is no difference between these lenses and it’s just not worth carrying the extra weight around, likewise for travel photographers and people like myself who shoot a lot of outdoor action sports. Would I upgrade to this lens if I still has the MK1 2.8 version? Tough question as it will probably cost you in the region of $1000 by the time you have sold the old one and bought the new one. There is a lot you can do with $1000….. but I would be inclined to say that yes it is worth it if you use it day in, day out for your business. Especially on a full frame camera, my MK1 was always slightly”mushy” wide open and the MKII is definitely improved in this area between 70mm and 170mm. It softens up at the far end of the zoom scale but still produces some great shots. Combine that with the hugely improved resistance to lens flare and much better vignetting control and it is a winner. Bottom line I think everyone should have a 70-200 in their arsenal and for me having IS is a must so it comes down to these two choices. Both will produce stunning shots but only the f2.8 will do so in very low light levels for fast moving subjects. Whether you need the f2.8 IS version or the f4 IS will really come down to what you are shooting and not any differences in the images these lenses produce.
Please support this site and help me to continue to add to it by purchasing the lens through this link to my good friends at B&H Photo for the 2.8 HERE and the 70-200 f4 L IS HERE
Very interesting results, and great review… Thanks.
Great review. Good to know a bit more about the 2.8 vs. the 4. Who ever hasn’t ordered from B&H Photo should really check out there site. Great prices.
You forgot to mention that if you plan to use a 2x or 1.4x extender with the 2.8 or the 4, the 2.8 is obviously a better choice (140-400 at f/5.6 wide open versus 140-400 at f/8 wide open). You also lose auto focus abilities with the f/4. N…ow in your profession, you probably would never use an extender on a zoom like this for photos but for video they are definitely usable.
The IS in the new 2.8 is actually usable on a tripod when taking video, there’s no drifting when you stop a pan or tilt, unlike the older IS system (which the f/4 might have? Wasn’t sure on this one)
It makes sense that the 4 would have a slight edge in image quality due to less elements (20 vs. 23) but the fact that the new one is very close is a pretty huge accomplishment.
Great review. It really makes you think if the $2300 was worth it to spend on the new 2.8. I think it is due to the pros I mentioned. The IS really blows my mind when taking video. I can get usable shots at 200mm hand held.
Great review of f2.8 MKII vs f4 IS! The only question I have is, since you only shoot outdoor sports (lots of light) then why even pay for f4 IS when you can save $600 and shoot with f4 non-IS? Unless, of course, the IQ for f4 IS is better than f4 non-IS…
Yes the IS version is leagues ahead of the non-IS version that is the reason. The IS version is much much newer lens. Its night and day between the two.
By initially testing only at the minimum focus distance…..you are essentially testing these lenses mainly as close up lenses……NOT the proper way to test lenses. It should be done at around 50x the focal length for meaningful results……
How so Pete? I would prefer to know the low end of the lens in terms of quality, that way there are no surprises you know ? It still serves as a way to compare them as long as both shot from the same distance. I simply don’t have enough time to test every possible variation as I mentioned in the review.
I would be surprised if the quality was affected that much by focus distance though. It was not something I was aware of if its true, can you explain why this would be the case?
BTW. Great portfolio. Everyone should click on Pete’s website link there and take a look!
It’s because an otherwise excellent lens for distance work can have poor close-up performance. Try shooting a Canon 50 1.4 at minimum distance and check the edges and corners to see what I mean….it’s great at normal distances though! ) Lenses such as the 70-200mm
Canon’s are NOT optimized for close up work….they tend to have curvature of field at their minimum focus distance. That’s why all micro adjustment for autofocus correction is recommended to be done at 50x as well ( dpreview shoots all their lens tests at 30x distance ).
See this from Canon’s top Tech Rep:
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html
Thanks Pete that’s some interesting reading. Might have to reconsider how I do things in the future. But like I said take the 100% crops for what you will, I’m by no means a pro lens tester and I just don’t have time to try every combination. There are others out there that can do that far better.
As Pete stated, and confirmed by another tester, the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II is not at its best at its MFD, 1.2m. Great effort though, thanks!
Good review Dan, I also like you portfolio.. I would tend to agree with Pete and Chris about how it is tested, but like you said this isn’t your job. I defiantly wouldn’t take as much time as you did to test it. Btw Pete, very nice portfolio!
I have owned the lens for 6 months now and use it on a 7d. I always have the extra need for f2.8 it seems. I have known many portrait photographers who use the 70-200 a lot, which the extra dof makes a big difference. I knew it was going to be heavy but you defiantly get a workout! I use to hike a lot and i can see why in your type of photography you would go for the f4.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Your site is giving me great info. I have one question though.
As a beginner hobby photographer my interest is growing more and more. In 2009 i got a second hand 300D + EFS 28-135. Last year i bought a 60D and now i’m looking for a better lens with a budget around 1000,-
For that matter i am wondering if image stabilization is necessary.
I think IS is worth having in most situations. what about getting a 70-200 f4 L IS , maybe second hand to keep the price down.
nice review!!
Thanks!
You said that you prefer F4 over F2.8!! it sounds like you are saying 70-200mm F4 is better than F2.8 and it beat it easily! really !!! You are the first guy who recommend to go with F4 over F2.8! Everybody else says 1 stop could makes a big differences!! + Nobady says F4 better than F2.8. If you are trying to say that, Sorry you are completely wrong, 70-200mm F2.8 IS II is not only has F2.8 aperture, The IS on it is AWESOME, Improved, for this lens, it is very very important + the built quality and the image quality are improved. If you are trying to say that F4 is good lens and if someone has no budget to afford F2.8, that’s okay, you are right, but saying F4 is better than F2.8!!! SORRY
Haha.
Thanks for review. I have a question though. Based on my following parameters
1) Balance between indoor and outdoor photos
2) No sports or fast moving photos
3) Not enlarging pictures more than 8×10
Is it not feasible that with today’s ISO you can bump it up for those low light shots using the F/4 lens and still get decent photos?
Absolutely it is! Yes if you aren’t shooting fast moving subjects I think you’ll be fine if you have a newer camera.
So, I rented the newest 2.8 to give it a try. I’ve done this a few times, each with completely different (and unpleasant) results. I have been looking in to buying a 70-200 and it seems like the F4 are available at a steal of a price, while the 2.8 are hovering around $2000-ish depending on options. I was wondering if you’ve got an updated review since this one. I mostly shoot photos of families, babies, children, seniors- that kind of thing. For newborns, I am fine with a prime lens, but I’ve found the zoom feature helpful when shooting families (especially when we’re outdoors chasing children). Would you still recommend the F4 over the 2.8 for this? While it may have been an error on my part with the 2.8, I doubt it was. The older version of the 2.8 shoots crisp, clean, perfect images. This new one is HORRIBLE wide open or otherwise. My 85mm does a better job than the rented lenses (and I say lenses, because I thought I had a faulty lens, so they sent me a new one. I returned that one as well and got a completely different lens, only to be disappointed by the blur and occasional other issues. The lack of sharpness is most disappointing. I appreciate any insight
I don’t have an update. I haven’t shot with the lens since I posted this review. I would say that your experience seems to be unlucky, though. This lens is generally regarded as much better that its predecessor, so I think you should have words with the lens rental place more than anything else. Perhaps it needed AF microadjustment?
Thanks for the review. My 70-200 f/4 IS work great for mainly landscape, some sport events, and few indoor portrait of my kids. The faster f/2.8 IS I borrowed was better for many of the wedding shooting (indoor). The IS MKII should be even better but it comes with a hefty price tag that is hard to justify for amateur photographers.
Looks like a faulty lens to me. I bought the 70-200 f2.8ii and returned it due to exactly the same problem; poor image quality at 200mm f2.8. The replacement lens was far better.
I’ve had the (2.8 IS ii) lens for a while now but found that the IS can be a little inconsistent. You can get some good images at 1/15s which is great, but at moderate shutter speeds (1/125 – 1/500), I’m getting more blurred images than I would have expected. It’s not unusable by any means, just not as good as I was expecting. I’m not having the same problem with my 100-400ii, so pretty sure it’s not my technique that is to blame.
I’m thinking of getting the f4 IS version for outdoor shooting. Not as a replacement, but as a lightweight alternative.
I agonised for ages over which standard telephoto to replace my old 70-210 f/4 EF … 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS or 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. In the end the 70-200 f/4L IS seemed the best compromise of weight, size, speed, optical quality, and ergonomics. I wish it was black, so as to be less obvious, but in every other respect I am very happy with it. I thought I’d miss the wider aperture of the f/2.8 version, but I don’t need it. There is no penalty at all in sharpness or resolution, and I reckon the out-of-camera colours from the f/4 lens are nicer than those delivered by the f/2.8 version.
Glad you like it Tom! Check out the LensCoat covers if you want to add some stealthy blackness to it 🙂
Hi
Is there any particularly effective way of improving the lens flare on the original 70-200 f2.8 IS, if it is just a coating on the lens surely there would be a filter that could help.
Not really. The problem with filters is they usually increase flare massively, because light bounces between the front element and the filter and introduces new flares on top of those created natively by the lens. You can get some truly awful flare if you shoot into the sun with even the very best filters on the market.
Dan – I’m going back & forth between the 2.8 and 4.0 (will get IS version of either). I mostly shoot outdoor portraits on Canon 6D. Do you think the 2.8 is necessary? Thanks!
I think it’s a nice thing to have if you shoot mostly portraits, yes. Getting the nice shallow depth of field whilst not having to zoom in too far (causing facial distortion) is a nice thing. f/2.8 for you!
I have had several copies of this lens. It is surprising to me that so many folks call it a ‘prime-killer’. What I found is that at 200mm all of them were softer in some part of the mid-frame to some degree when compared to my f4 IS. This is not what I was expecting from the reviews and forum chatter. This issue I had was more to do with some variation across the frame than soft overall. The center and near-center was always good and the extreme corners always better than the f4 IS at f4, but in-between was a bit hit-or miss. But 135mm they were all good.
So I’d say this lens is definitely the weakest at 200mm with fairly significant copy variation. I guess the point might be not to try to find the ‘perfect’ copy, but realize that you might have to compromise at 200mm.
Oh, but the bokeh is so, so much better than the f4 IS, that this could/should be a much bigger factor for shooting portraits than some slight sharpness variation at 200mm.
I, too, struggle to find the right version of the 70-200mm. Your review was really good at pointing out how f/4 IS would be my main choice if it wasn’t for those weddings I shoot in poor lighting. I would love not to have my back and valet broken by the F/2.8.
Thanks for the review. I use the 70-200 f/4 IS for both weddings, portraits and landscape pictures.