I must have watched at least a dozen videos whilst I've been trying to decide which to buy. But all the rest put together haven't given me half the information you have that is relevant to my situation. Thank you very much, you've definitely helped me decide. I wish more reviewers were as competent and considered the real pros and cons as you have.
I know this is a very old video, but I just stumbled across it. I had a 2.8, but I never used it because I never wanted to carry it around. I always left it at home when I traveled because I didn't want to carry the extra weight. I just got the f4 version, and I carry it everywhere. I can still get very blurry backgrounds, and so far, I have not found a reason I would need or want the 2.8. It' sad, but true, the "cool factor" does make a difference to clients......it shouldn't, but it does. I heard an interview with a fashion photographer and was asked why he uses such large expensive lenses when he could do just as well with more reasonable ones, and he said that when he is hired by high-dollar ad agencies, they expect you to show up with with impressive looking gear. Thanks for posting!!
it's always interesting to hear these discussions, because its so dependent on your shooting style and needs. Basicallyl, f you've never had the 2.8, you probably won't miss it. If you shoot in low light, or at night AND you don't have the convenience of focusing and recomposing with your tootsies (feet), OR you need to catch something that's moving in low light...you'll NEED the 2.8. If you're shooting static objects (even in the dark) the IS from the 4.0 can compensate for the 1 stop difference if you hold steady and set your camera appropriately. The 2.8 is a hog compared to the 4, but it's worth it, if you need it. The f4 is sharper, but a sharp ,noisy, and blurry image because you couldn't freeze your subject is kinda useless (unless you're going for that). I've owned both at the same time, and just recently sold the F4 IS because i use the 2.8 in the situations i just described :) (also, cool video. I appreciate hearing others points of view :) )
When I worked for the newspapers, I used the 2.8 version of this lens as I never knew what I was going to run into. Remember, the 2.8 has twice the light gathering ability. The 2.8 is heavy, quite heavy. When I retired, I sold the 2.8 version. I prefer the lighter weight. The 2.8 does have a slightly better bokeh, but this is outweighed by the weight difference. Besides, I think the bokeh thing is way is way overrated. I don't think the 2.8 is any more rugged. In fact, I had physical issues with the 2.8, never with the f4. The fact that the smaller lens (f4) doesn't come with the tripod mounting ring sucks. Canon is kind of greedy to not include it AND to charge such a ridiculous price for it. Fortunately, the Chinese made versions are quite well made and reasonably priced. They work just fine. The bigger lens looking more professional can have a downside. I think your more noticable when using it. This is usually not to your advantage. I too, think the f4 version is the better version for most users. But it should always be "get the right tool for the job." As far as sharpness, both lenses are excellent. I don't find the 2.8 to be necessarily sharper.
I've owned the 2.8 IS II and now own the f/4 is. The 2.8 is a beast and takes beautiful images but I don't regret downgrading to the f4 at all. The f4 is very sharp and it is just a tool and delivers. With most modern censors you don't really need the extra stop of light. The best part is I can walk around all day with the f4 and it doesn't kill me.
The F4 have way shaper image but F2.8 diffinately works better in low light conditions. I choose the F4 anytime over the F2.8 and get a F1.8, F1.4 prime for night shots
Nice comparison. I actually own and use both lenses. As a full time wedding and corporate photographer, the f/2.8 lens is a staple. I've only recently started using the f/4 model to cut weight when shooting outdoor daytime weddings and events (and personal work). It's a great alternative and really saves the wrists and shoulders over a 10-14 hour assignment.
+Stan Olszewski Thank you for your perspective! I could have kept both, but I sold the f/2.8 and have not regretted it. Love the light weight of the f/4 version, and I think it is actually a little bit sharper.
This is a very balanced and informative video. I own a couple of L-glass f4 lenses and they are always sharp. I own faster lenses as well. But the f4 L-glass is superior in many ways.
Hi mate. so I hired the 2.8 today to try it out. after about 3 hours at a cycle race and the wellington zoo here in new zealand.....completely agree and get this. ....I can get both the 70 200 f4 and the 24 105 f4 for the price of the 2.8. so pretty happy with decision
I've been shooting with F4 IS for a while now, It's amazing Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L lens for out door shooting or any event. I can't asked for anything more in term of quality image. I'll won't stop using this lens until canon came out with comparable weight and better Quality image.
This is one of the most realistic videos I've watched about these two lenses. You will often stop down your f2.8 lens, and the older version offers almost perfect image quality over all focal lengths with no chromatic aberration or significant flaws. For me, it's better to save some money, buy the f4 version, and then get a better camera, which will improve this lens even more. The f2.8 version is more advanced for sure, but not by that much
No comparison after owning the 2.8. It’s so durable and bright. I can confidently know I’m not gonna damage it. I can open it up and shoot in any situation. It’s amazing and at sub $1,000 it’s definitely a game changer.
I have this lens, i use it on my Canon EOS 7D, at wide open is a little bit soft, with issues against brightlights or sunsets (flare), at f/4 is sharp and at f/5.6 it's amazingly sharp, i have to microadjust the AF to +4 and now it's working fine, weather sealing really does his work, image stabilizer jumps at the start but it's nothing from the other world, it's a dust magnet, but overall, it's my favorite lens to use to capture birds, it may suffer of flaring against brightlights, but reading on the internet that's normal for a telephoto zoom lens with a lot of glass inside.
Nice points for the ones getting one of those. Too many unreasonable dislikes, useful info in the video, thanks! F4 hood looks eemmm... This is a reason alone for 2.8! :D
I used to have the f4 and i was really happy with the pics i got from it. Then again, i was looking for a tele lens for darker concert shoots to go with my 24-70 2.8 and found a 2.8 IS for a decent price. Im sure i will be notice the weight but I dont mind.
Thanks a lot for the info. I have canon 6D, canon 50mm 1.8 and canon 24-105 f4.0. I plan to buy canon 70-200 IS f2.8 for low light to complete my focal length range. I am armature photographer, just hobbies. I lean to 70-200 f2.8 because I already have 24-105 f4.0 but rethink about the weight after this video.
very useful comparison even years out (hello 2015, its 2019 here). there's an III version of the I version now, but almost all the above is still relevant. current price difference is £1299 vs £1999(£1779 with a £220 cash back deal).
I think you might be wrong about the plastic casing on the f4 version. I had one which rolled off of my camera bag from only a couple of inches onto a concrete floor causing a split in the casing near the mount ring. It was most definitely aluminium, although shockingly thin!Also, forgive me if you already said this, but the f4 is not weather sealed like the f2.8.
Also the 2.8 Mkii has a closer focusing distance which massively helps with indoor photography, I found that with my f4 i was always backing up against walls trying to get focus!
Good video. I fully agree and I think that a 70-200 f/4 is a much better option than f/2.8 in almost all the cases. There's hardly ever any need for 70-200 f/2.8 except for outdoor fashion shoots. It just doesn't make sense to always open up to 2.8. Only bad photographers will always shoot corporate events or weddings at aperture 2.8. And their clients are often mad with almost out-of-focus blurry junk they solemnly presented with. But courses for horses and, of course, for shooting top models outdoors the 70-200 2.8 is a good option but also are good 300 f/2.8 and medium format equipment. And all this equipment is used extensively to shoot top models and all kinds of celebrities. But equipment doesn't equal skills even remotely, and there are often poor shots made with Phase one digital backs or with Hasselblad cameras. Some are not even in focus. Personally I think 300 f/2.8 sucks for head shots of women. All this frenzy with top of the line equipment and very fast lenses is plain stupid. We often need to stop down to f/8 and f/11 to make head shots in the studio. Thinking that the 300 f/2.8 will give good head shots is just as stupid. It's just the skills of the photographers and Photoshop editors that matter. It's also about using lighting equipment properly. Most don't use lighting equipment properly but buy tons of fast lenses. Nothing more stupid than that. It's just craziness and some kind shopaholism with all these: I need 1.4 prime; 1.8 is not gonna cut it for me; it's not for pros and I need pro equipment; and f/4 is way too slow and probably unsharp. Well, people who say that -- well -- they need to stay out of photography 'cause all they can do is crank out thousands of junk photos; many even out of focus; shoot with flash guns in full auto without dialing down flash compensation; shoot only in aperture priority to set the lowest apertures; worry about the sharpness of a 1000-2000 buck lens and yet they shoot only blurry photos with a couple megapixel quality at best; shoot only in RAW (as if their pictures were such masterpieces that JPEG would destroy their great color and dynamic range) and they produce hundreds of thousands of junk photos. It's total `frenzy. And we have it all over the Internet: buy a full frame + bunch of fast lenses + shoot raw = you are a photographer. And those who shoot on inexpensive gear are just....not photographers. Because only a monkey with a Hasselblad or 300/f2.8 is a photographer in their view.
hye im often shoot portrait and wildlife animal. which should i buy between these f2.8 n f4. never try both, my budget on f4 but its necessary to have f2.8. im using eos rp. it like choosing between the sharper vs dof. often also do kid photography. hope got best suggestion answer between those glass. thank you.
It's best to start from reading a few books on photography. Lenses don't matter at all but I'm gonna give some in-depth advice here anyway. First of all, it's absolutely not necessary to have f/2.8 (f/4 is enough on full frames) unless you shoot portraits with a cropped sensor. Second, in portraiture it is more about lighting rather than lenses. You may go with the Godox X Pro + a few Godox flash guns. Third, for head shots a 100-120mm (it's 85mm on the crop sensor) looks best in my opinion. For full body shots 50mm is very good (it's 35mm on the crop sensor). Fourth, don't shoot only wide open, use various apertures. Something like using only f/1.4 or f/2.8 or opening aperture as wide as possible is a bad idea. I mean sometimes you may dabble with f/1.8 or something like that but generally there's a whole lot more to photography than just opening up aperture to the max, which by the way will make everything very unsharp except for the very center (it's more of a trick or of a special effect, and it should not be abused and should not replace all the photography. The same holds for bokeh). Fifth, for animals it's a wildlife lens, i.e. a strong telephoto lens, say, up to 400 or 600mm (for a cropped sensor it's up to 300 or 400mm). You may want to get rid of your full frame camera, as lenses are very expensive for this format and you will also ABSOLUTELY need some lighting equipment to become a better photographer than an iPhone photographer. If you are a total beginner, the good start is just a couple of Godox flashes + Godox X Pro. Sixth, don't disregard wide lenses. They produce beautiful results. It's the 16-35mm IS F/4 for full frame Canons. The full frame 100mm macro VR will also work nicely for portraits as well as will the new Canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens. And I want to emphasize that when it comes to wildlife photography, it is better to have 400-500mm on a full frame because otherwise your full frame will be a complete waste as you will have to crop it too much or constrain yourself to ducks or domestic animals. It's a very important point. Full frames are usually not the best idea for wildlife photography. I'm sorry if what I say looks harsh or like a critique. It's not. It's honest advice. If you can justify the expense of full frame lenses and cameras, it's not wrong to start from them right in the beginning. They are especially nice when it comes to wide angles and low light situations. And you can shoot anything with full frames. It's just that full frame lenses for wildlife are super-expensive. So many shoot wildlife on cropped sensors while using full frame sensors for portraiture and landscapes. If the budget permits, a photographer can shoot landscapes and portraiture with a medium format camera and use full frame cameras for wildlife. It's just expensive to do so but it has a great advantage: you can crop photos more. The same holds for sports photographers. They just crop. They use very expensive super-telephoto lenses and then they can have the luxury of more cropping than would be possible with an already cropped sensor.
Link to the mounting plate you use for this for tripod? Also, if you take a sample of the hissing in audacity and use the noise reduction effect, you can probably largely eliminate the audio hiss.
Thank you for the review. Its weird in some photos I see this lens to be almost pure white but then in others it looks like a faded 90s computer cream color. Is it white or cream ?
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto I want to buy those lenses. I have a camera Canon D 50, would you recommend these lenses for my camera because i take lots of family
Really great video! I appreciate you mentioning the "cool factor", because like it or not it definitely plays in to our (or at least my haha) decisions.
Thanks for the practical and realistic video. I wish I saw this video first but luckily I purchased the F4 for my Canon M50. No doubt, the F2.8 is great but definitely the weight and cost is a huge factor. When I attach the F4 with the Viltrox M2 speed booster, I'll be able to get it to F2.8 (but without the weight and size.)
I can afford the 70-200 Canon F4 is and the sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS... Have you shot with the sigma and is it worth having one more fstop? I shoot indoor basketball and outdoor football?
Sorry, no experience with Sigma. Borrow or rent a 70-200 and shoot a whole event at f/4. Did you get all your shots? If 2.8 would have got you more shots (or not), then you have your answer.
get the Tamron if you need 2.8 and don't mind the size. Good prices in the used market. much better than the Sigma. Trust me if you want gear looking isolation of your subject,you want 2.8. The Tamron lens A009 version specifically is not far from the Canon usm ii version. Only get the F4 if size is important to you.
I must have watched at least a dozen videos whilst I've been trying to decide which to buy. But all the rest put together haven't given me half the information you have that is relevant to my situation. Thank you very much, you've definitely helped me decide. I wish more reviewers were as competent and considered the real pros and cons as you have.
Glad to be of help, Mark. Thanks for the feedback!
Hi. So what did you choose?
Which one did you choose !?
Yes honest your video is very helpful full of knowledge and your honest thanks
I know this is a very old video, but I just stumbled across it. I had a 2.8, but I never used it because I never wanted to carry it around. I always left it at home when I traveled because I didn't want to carry the extra weight. I just got the f4 version, and I carry it everywhere. I can still get very blurry backgrounds, and so far, I have not found a reason I would need or want the 2.8.
It' sad, but true, the "cool factor" does make a difference to clients......it shouldn't, but it does. I heard an interview with a fashion photographer and was asked why he uses such large expensive lenses when he could do just as well with more reasonable ones, and he said that when he is hired by high-dollar ad agencies, they expect you to show up with with impressive looking gear.
Thanks for posting!!
it's always interesting to hear these discussions, because its so dependent on your shooting style and needs. Basicallyl, f you've never had the 2.8, you probably won't miss it. If you shoot in low light, or at night AND you don't have the convenience of focusing and recomposing with your tootsies (feet), OR you need to catch something that's moving in low light...you'll NEED the 2.8. If you're shooting static objects (even in the dark) the IS from the 4.0 can compensate for the 1 stop difference if you hold steady and set your camera appropriately. The 2.8 is a hog compared to the 4, but it's worth it, if you need it. The f4 is sharper, but a sharp ,noisy, and blurry image because you couldn't freeze your subject is kinda useless (unless you're going for that). I've owned both at the same time, and just recently sold the F4 IS because i use the 2.8 in the situations i just described :) (also, cool video. I appreciate hearing others points of view :) )
When I worked for the newspapers, I used the 2.8 version of this lens as I never knew what I was going to run into. Remember, the 2.8 has twice the light gathering ability.
The 2.8 is heavy, quite heavy. When I retired, I sold the 2.8 version. I prefer the lighter weight. The 2.8 does have a slightly better bokeh, but this is outweighed by the weight difference. Besides, I think the bokeh thing is way is way overrated.
I don't think the 2.8 is any more rugged. In fact, I had physical issues with the 2.8, never with the f4.
The fact that the smaller lens (f4) doesn't come with the tripod mounting ring sucks. Canon is kind of greedy to not include it AND to charge such a ridiculous price for it. Fortunately, the Chinese made versions are quite well made and reasonably priced. They work just fine.
The bigger lens looking more professional can have a downside. I think your more noticable when using it. This is usually not to your advantage.
I too, think the f4 version is the better version for most users. But it should always be "get the right tool for the job."
As far as sharpness, both lenses are excellent. I don't find the 2.8 to be necessarily sharper.
Worked for the newspapers? Wasn't f/8 your friend not f2.8? ;)
I've owned the 2.8 IS II and now own the f/4 is. The 2.8 is a beast and takes beautiful images but I don't regret downgrading to the f4 at all. The f4 is very sharp and it is just a tool and delivers. With most modern censors you don't really need the extra stop of light. The best part is I can walk around all day with the f4 and it doesn't kill me.
The benefit of F2.8 is not to get the extra stop of light so much as the reduced depth of field.
The F4 have way shaper image but F2.8 diffinately works better in low light conditions. I choose the F4 anytime over the F2.8 and get a F1.8, F1.4 prime for night shots
Exactly!!
Totally agree - btw are you a Kiwi?
2.8 can be just as sharp if you focus it right
Nice comparison. I actually own and use both lenses. As a full time wedding and corporate photographer, the f/2.8 lens is a staple. I've only recently started using the f/4 model to cut weight when shooting outdoor daytime weddings and events (and personal work). It's a great alternative and really saves the wrists and shoulders over a 10-14 hour assignment.
+Stan Olszewski Thank you for your perspective! I could have kept both, but I sold the f/2.8 and have not regretted it. Love the light weight of the f/4 version, and I think it is actually a little bit sharper.
I see you havent made videos in a very long time.. this was very informative, and i enjoyed watching it. thank you.
This is a very balanced and informative video. I own a couple of L-glass f4 lenses and they are always sharp. I own faster lenses as well. But the f4 L-glass is superior in many ways.
PS. I had both. The F4 is a joy to work with. The 2.8 has a slight edge in quality. But such a brick...
Hi mate. so I hired the 2.8 today to try it out. after about 3 hours at a cycle race and the wellington zoo here in new zealand.....completely agree and get this. ....I can get both the 70 200 f4 and the 24 105 f4 for the price of the 2.8. so pretty happy with decision
I've been shooting with F4 IS for a while now, It's amazing Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L lens for out door shooting or any event. I can't asked for anything more in term of quality image. I'll won't stop using this lens until canon came out with comparable weight and better Quality image.
Fabulous, incredibly thorough and honest review of these lenses in a language that I, as a beginner can understand. Thank you so much.
I use a 85mm 1.8 lens if I need to get a faster aperture than 4.0. for this focal length.
This is one of the most realistic videos I've watched about these two lenses. You will often stop down your f2.8 lens, and the older version offers almost perfect image quality over all focal lengths with no chromatic aberration or significant flaws. For me, it's better to save some money, buy the f4 version, and then get a better camera, which will improve this lens even more. The f2.8 version is more advanced for sure, but not by that much
I only know the 2.8, had it for almost 20 years. I am happy I saw this video. There is no way I will buy the 4, if I can only have one.
Very useful and too the point. Will go ahead and buy the f4 lens. Thanks.
No comparison after owning the 2.8. It’s so durable and bright. I can confidently know I’m not gonna damage it. I can open it up and shoot in any situation. It’s amazing and at sub $1,000 it’s definitely a game changer.
I have this lens, i use it on my Canon EOS 7D, at wide open is a little bit soft, with issues against brightlights or sunsets (flare), at f/4 is sharp and at f/5.6 it's amazingly sharp, i have to microadjust the AF to +4 and now it's working fine, weather sealing really does his work, image stabilizer jumps at the start but it's nothing from the other world, it's a dust magnet, but overall, it's my favorite lens to use to capture birds, it may suffer of flaring against brightlights, but reading on the internet that's normal for a telephoto zoom lens with a lot of glass inside.
Thanks for a really helpful comparison. It's still a useful video (after 6yrs).
Nice points for the ones getting one of those. Too many unreasonable dislikes, useful info in the video, thanks!
F4 hood looks eemmm... This is a reason alone for 2.8! :D
I used to have the f4 and i was really happy with the pics i got from it. Then again, i was looking for a tele lens for darker concert shoots to go with my 24-70 2.8 and found a 2.8 IS for a decent price. Im sure i will be notice the weight but I dont mind.
Use a monopod with the 2.8👍
I am flirting with the idea of finally getting the f/2.8 II. It is a thing of beauty!
I still can't decide which one to choose
The f4 is definitely not plastic!
Just wanted to take the minute and say thank you for a really helpful comparisson which contributed a lot to making up my mind. Thank you!
Thanks a lot for the info. I have canon 6D, canon 50mm 1.8 and canon 24-105 f4.0. I plan to buy canon 70-200 IS f2.8 for low light to complete my focal length range. I am armature photographer, just hobbies. I lean to 70-200 f2.8 because I already have 24-105 f4.0 but rethink about the weight after this video.
very useful comparison even years out (hello 2015, its 2019 here). there's an III version of the I version now, but almost all the above is still relevant. current price difference is £1299 vs £1999(£1779 with a £220 cash back deal).
I think you might be wrong about the plastic casing on the f4 version. I had one which rolled off of my camera bag from only a couple of inches onto a concrete floor causing a split in the casing near the mount ring. It was most definitely aluminium, although shockingly thin!Also, forgive me if you already said this, but the f4 is not weather sealed like the f2.8.
I suppose I could be wrong, but seems like plastic on mine. Thanks for the note on weather sealing!
Nah, definitely a metal alloy. It was shiny and silver. I've also seen a dismantled one,.
Also the 2.8 Mkii has a closer focusing distance which massively helps with indoor photography, I found that with my f4 i was always backing up against walls trying to get focus!
The 4.0 IS version is weather sealed. The earlier non-IS version is not.
f4is is weather sealed, the non is version isn't.
Which of these two lenses is better for photographing birds and nature?
Good video. I fully agree and I think that a 70-200 f/4 is a much better option than f/2.8 in almost all the cases. There's hardly ever any need for 70-200 f/2.8 except for outdoor fashion shoots. It just doesn't make sense to always open up to 2.8. Only bad photographers will always shoot corporate events or weddings at aperture 2.8. And their clients are often mad with almost out-of-focus blurry junk they solemnly presented with. But courses for horses and, of course, for shooting top models outdoors the 70-200 2.8 is a good option but also are good 300 f/2.8 and medium format equipment. And all this equipment is used extensively to shoot top models and all kinds of celebrities. But equipment doesn't equal skills even remotely, and there are often poor shots made with Phase one digital backs or with Hasselblad cameras. Some are not even in focus. Personally I think 300 f/2.8 sucks for head shots of women. All this frenzy with top of the line equipment and very fast lenses is plain stupid. We often need to stop down to f/8 and f/11 to make head shots in the studio. Thinking that the 300 f/2.8 will give good head shots is just as stupid. It's just the skills of the photographers and Photoshop editors that matter. It's also about using lighting equipment properly. Most don't use lighting equipment properly but buy tons of fast lenses. Nothing more stupid than that. It's just craziness and some kind shopaholism with all these: I need 1.4 prime; 1.8 is not gonna cut it for me; it's not for pros and I need pro equipment; and f/4 is way too slow and probably unsharp. Well, people who say that -- well -- they need to stay out of photography 'cause all they can do is crank out thousands of junk photos; many even out of focus; shoot with flash guns in full auto without dialing down flash compensation; shoot only in aperture priority to set the lowest apertures; worry about the sharpness of a 1000-2000 buck lens and yet they shoot only blurry photos with a couple megapixel quality at best; shoot only in RAW (as if their pictures were such masterpieces that JPEG would destroy their great color and dynamic range) and they produce hundreds of thousands of junk photos. It's total `frenzy. And we have it all over the Internet: buy a full frame + bunch of fast lenses + shoot raw = you are a photographer. And those who shoot on inexpensive gear are just....not photographers. Because only a monkey with a Hasselblad or 300/f2.8 is a photographer in their view.
hye im often shoot portrait and wildlife animal. which should i buy between these f2.8 n f4. never try both, my budget on f4 but its necessary to have f2.8. im using eos rp. it like choosing between the sharper vs dof. often also do kid photography. hope got best suggestion answer between those glass. thank you.
It's best to start from reading a few books on photography. Lenses don't matter at all but I'm gonna give some in-depth advice here anyway. First of all, it's absolutely not necessary to have f/2.8 (f/4 is enough on full frames) unless you shoot portraits with a cropped sensor. Second, in portraiture it is more about lighting rather than lenses. You may go with the Godox X Pro + a few Godox flash guns. Third, for head shots a 100-120mm (it's 85mm on the crop sensor) looks best in my opinion. For full body shots 50mm is very good (it's 35mm on the crop sensor). Fourth, don't shoot only wide open, use various apertures. Something like using only f/1.4 or f/2.8 or opening aperture as wide as possible is a bad idea. I mean sometimes you may dabble with f/1.8 or something like that but generally there's a whole lot more to photography than just opening up aperture to the max, which by the way will make everything very unsharp except for the very center (it's more of a trick or of a special effect, and it should not be abused and should not replace all the photography. The same holds for bokeh). Fifth, for animals it's a wildlife lens, i.e. a strong telephoto lens, say, up to 400 or 600mm (for a cropped sensor it's up to 300 or 400mm). You may want to get rid of your full frame camera, as lenses are very expensive for this format and you will also ABSOLUTELY need some lighting equipment to become a better photographer than an iPhone photographer. If you are a total beginner, the good start is just a couple of Godox flashes + Godox X Pro. Sixth, don't disregard wide lenses. They produce beautiful results. It's the 16-35mm IS F/4 for full frame Canons. The full frame 100mm macro VR will also work nicely for portraits as well as will the new Canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens. And I want to emphasize that when it comes to wildlife photography, it is better to have 400-500mm on a full frame because otherwise your full frame will be a complete waste as you will have to crop it too much or constrain yourself to ducks or domestic animals. It's a very important point. Full frames are usually not the best idea for wildlife photography. I'm sorry if what I say looks harsh or like a critique. It's not. It's honest advice. If you can justify the expense of full frame lenses and cameras, it's not wrong to start from them right in the beginning. They are especially nice when it comes to wide angles and low light situations. And you can shoot anything with full frames. It's just that full frame lenses for wildlife are super-expensive. So many shoot wildlife on cropped sensors while using full frame sensors for portraiture and landscapes. If the budget permits, a photographer can shoot landscapes and portraiture with a medium format camera and use full frame cameras for wildlife. It's just expensive to do so but it has a great advantage: you can crop photos more. The same holds for sports photographers. They just crop. They use very expensive super-telephoto lenses and then they can have the luxury of more cropping than would be possible with an already cropped sensor.
The bokeh at f/2.8 is cool, but unfortunately the aberration/deviation at the edges is immense. What is important is not always in the centre.
Link to the mounting plate you use for this for tripod? Also, if you take a sample of the hissing in audacity and use the noise reduction effect, you can probably largely eliminate the audio hiss.
reallyrightstuff.com
Thanks a lot, this has helped me choose and I reckon I will also go for the f/4
Thank you for the review. Its weird in some photos I see this lens to be almost pure white but then in others it looks like a faded 90s computer cream color. Is it white or cream ?
cream color
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto I want to buy those lenses. I have a camera Canon D 50, would you recommend these lenses for my camera because i take lots of family
I have same did the lence work on it
One of the best youtube videos i ever saw. Thanks!
A very useful lens review. I liked it. Well done! Will probably get the F/4.
Thank you.
Really informative video, I'm also trying to decide which of these two lenses to choose from, and now i know thanks to you
Glad you found the comparison helpful!
Really great video! I appreciate you mentioning the "cool factor", because like it or not it definitely plays in to our (or at least my haha) decisions.
Is it advisable to get tripod collar for F4L? Also, is there a comparison for the F4L is, ii and the 2.8 is, ii or iii. Great video, thanks-Jim
Thanks for the practical and realistic video. I wish I saw this video first but luckily I purchased the F4 for my Canon M50. No doubt, the F2.8 is great but definitely the weight and cost is a huge factor. When I attach the F4 with the Viltrox M2 speed booster, I'll be able to get it to F2.8 (but without the weight and size.)
Hi.. is it compatible with the m50 viltrox speedbooster? I have also an m50 .. im planning to buy the F4 IS.. would appreciate if you ca reply. Thanks
Awesome Job,Thank you for this Video,
Good comparison video, but no comparison images? That would have made this video so much better.
Canon 70 200 is my best lens. Vibrant colours
Great Job! Really help with my decision . Thank you
Thank you! Glad I could help.
I can afford the 70-200 Canon F4 is and the sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS... Have you shot with the sigma and is it worth having one more fstop? I shoot indoor basketball and outdoor football?
Sorry, no experience with Sigma. Borrow or rent a 70-200 and shoot a whole event at f/4. Did you get all your shots? If 2.8 would have got you more shots (or not), then you have your answer.
get the Tamron if you need 2.8 and don't mind the size. Good prices in the used market. much better than the Sigma.
Trust me if you want gear looking isolation of your subject,you want 2.8.
The Tamron lens A009 version specifically is not far from the Canon usm ii version. Only get the F4 if size is important to you.
thanks... nice effort and very informative
Thank you!
Really useful excellent review. Just subscribed.
I'd buy the f4 but the lens hood is just eh😂
You still my thought😂😂
Well done, thanks!
Very helpful. Thanks.
probably one of the most boaring youtube videos I've watched, but there was some good and helpful information here. thanks!
Good job!
Thank you 😊
I just got a Canon 80D and looking at getting the f4 second hand for it. Is this a good idea? Great video:) thank you
i think the f4 autofocus doesnt work with the 80D autofocus system, i own the f2.8 II , and an 80D, works really well and really smooth
Idnawsi thanks :) I ended up being gifted from my nana the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 :'). maybe in the future I will look into a canon one :)
PoniesGirl26 it works i hve a canon 70d and use the 70-200 f4
Autofocus works absolutely perfectly with the 80D
Thanks man!
Which one is better for video?
IS is key with your question. 2.8 is better in lowlight and for background blur
good review
the 70200 also works a a self defense weapon
Exellent video, and I fully agree. I'd take the f4 any day. (Which I own).
My wife has "essential tremor" so we got the lighter lens for her to use it without shaking so much...
Thank u
Need 2.8 ? Search for a 80 200 2.8 L and very low price.
Need low weight ? Get the 135 2.0. Outstanding IQ.
F4 is Metal
at least thats what a few other reviews say
you definitely need the IS with those shaky hands 😂...just kidding, good video👍
UV filter -.-
Uh... must be this guys favorite word. And the L4 is medal.
Why not show some pictures from each lens? very confused video DUDE!!!!!!!!
why are you shaking this much?? lol
im sorry if i offend you.. but why is your hands shaking?
Tongue clicking is annoying
very poor audio, ruins what would otherwise be a good vid
Graham Gillett so you couldnt learn or understand stuff? ¡¡ Good gracious!!
Are you nervous? Voice and hands are shaking
Poor audio, sounds like ur talking in a tunnel.....
If you could just say “uh” or “um” 300 or 400 more times, that would be great!
Poor audio, sounds like ur talking in a tunnel.....
Apologies. Working on better audio for future videos.
Graham Gillett trolling.
Definitely trolling. He's basically said the same thing in 3 separate comments
That's because the same thing is on more than just this video. If you are going to make a video then do it properly first time!
Graham Gillett be nice bruh, or you purchase the equipment and let him use it so video, etc is your liking oh king