CANON 70-200 f4 IS REVIEW 2023
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- My Review of the Canon 70-200 f4 IS.
🔥 My presets and tutorials:
🔥 www.martincast...
🔥SUBSCRIBE FOR ONLINE WORKSHOPS EARLY BIRD DISCOUNTS HERE:
🔥www.martincast...
🔥 Your support makes a big difference to me, consider buying me a coffee here:
🔥 ko-fi.com/mart...
If you only watch ONE MORE video of mine, make it this one:
• ISO and Sharpness are ...
=========================
Follow me on instagram: / martincastein
Website: www.martincast...
=========================
It's crazy sharp. Magic happens when I use it on my 6D.
I just got a 70-20] f4 non-image stabilized, and I'm surprised how freaky sharp it is!
I own the F4 non is, and it's a fantastic lens! On a tripod or monopod or increasing the iso to match 1/200 or 1/400 of a sec. You won't miss the IS. I also own the 24-105 f4. These two lenses are always in my bag ready to shoot
Hi Martin,quite agree with you.I love my 70-200 f4 is.Used it for weddings with the 24-105 f4 is.Image quality as you say superb and very compact.If I needed a faster lens I pulled out my 85 f1.8 which I picked up for a couple of hundred pounds.Thanks.
Thank you David!
I'm just about to publish my review of 70-200 f/4 IS too =) And after borrowing it for a month I decide to stay with my old 70-300 IS because it is even more compact and versatile and not so worse in picture quality, considering it is by far not my most used type of glass. And for fast telefoto shots I plan to add the prime EF 200mm f/2.8 to my bag instead - it is not that expensive and fantstically sharp, while being much smaller than any 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. At the end of the day, when I reviewed Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, I realized I tended to shoot more at 200mm... so why don't just stick to such prime anyway. Cheers!
70-300 seems good too, for me id rather have the constant aperture though but its whatever works for you really! i will check out your review.
@@MartinCastein Sure, constant aperture is way better, but the thing is 70-300 is f/4 at 70-90mm, f/4.5 at 90-135mm and f/5 at most useful 135-240mm, so not even a stop darker (f/5.6 goes from 240mm up to 300mm). What is really much better in 70-200 is AF, while 70-300 IS (non-L) has ridiculous old "USM" with rotating and extending front element... 🤦♂although still being rather fast and precise.
I agree, the f4 aperture is more than enough and weight and size are important when you carry around the equipment all day. As a landscape photographer, I aspire to combine my 24-70 L f4 with 70-200 L f4. I now own the 70-300 II f3.5 / 5.6 an honest lens that is not waterproof and extends during zoom, creating problems when I use filters, the weight of the holder and filters introduces unwanted vibrations in windy or rainy moments.
I have the original non-IS version of the 70-200 F4. Zoom ring is loose and not damped but optics are amazing
i think people dont realise how good the f4 is optically.
The 70-200 f4 non-IS was the first L lens I bought, as a telephoto for my APS-C camera so I could photograph airplanes. I still love it, but I miss the IS. As you say, it’s very compact, and it has a permanent place in my camera bag. Might upgrade to IS at some point, but I’m sticking with f4!
I also have the non IS, it is by far the sharpest lens I own. Really can't go wrong with it for the price.
I wanted a 70-200 for a long time. Either 2.8 non-IS or f4 IS. I couldn't afford either. MPB had a Canon EF 70-300 4-5.6l is usm for $479 and that was just right for me. It's like a 70-200 f4 is, but with that extra little 300 5.6L is for when I'm doing birds. It's like 2 lenses in one for less than the price of either.
And while the 70-300 is stupid heavy, it's also super short so it fits in my bag!
Great video Martin I don't own the 70-200 f4 but I do have the older 70-210 f3.5-4.5 and I often use it for outdoor street portraits. It's the same size as a 440ml tin of larger I know I've just put it next to one as I write this comment 🤣but the lens hood is around half the size again. I picked it up in mint condition in the box for £48 on eBay 8 months ago and the pictures taken on my 1300D and 70D are incredible, I can't wait to try it on my 6D when it arrives.
I like listening a smart person. Thank you!
Glad I stumbled on your channel. You talk so much sense. 😊
Thank you Kevin!
I don’t have any Canon zooms right now but instead, for events and nature/floral photography, I use the EF 135mm L f/2., usually on a 6D but outdoors, sometimes on a 7D. This lens taught me what lens image quality really means. Obviously. I lose the flexibility of a zoom but I typically use two bodies, one for wide and one for telephoto. I rarely shot wide open. To hedge my bets on focus, I shoot at f/2.8 or f3.2 to get some DOF. I have recently been thinking about a 70-200 f/4 but I know I would grab the 135mm first.
Great timing, need more retrospective videos for young shooters starting up like me.
More to come!
Thank you so much for creating this review. I started shooting with fixed lenses and have been renting the Canon 24-70 for events, but found myself needing range of length and was looking at the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 but can only realistically invest in the 70-200 f4. I find that with the 24-70 f2.8 the lack of image stabilization can be an issue at times and I end up shooting with a higher f stop to get more detail. I’m definitely going to rent the 70-200 f4 and see how it performs for what I do doubling the iso.
Get the IS version if you can I think you meant that anyway, it’s a very good lens indeed.
This was really helpful 🙏🏾
Glad it was useful!
Thanks for an honest review, my son has become obsessed with planes and thought it would be good if I can get some images with him as at the moment I only have prime lenses and the longest being the 85mm f1.8. You've convinced me 👍
Glad I could help!
Loved this video...just from a confirmatory perspective. I just bought the f4 lens but was always unsure...plus I could definitely not afford the f2.8 😬 so this makes me feel a bit better for sure 😊
Awesome video thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
Thnx.
I’ve thought about this lens. I currently own the 70-300 nano mII lens. I think it’s f4-5.6? I also have the 24-105mm f4 mI lens. I kind of prefer primes though. The only telephoto one I have is the RF85mm f2. People gripe about the focusing on that lens but I just flip the range switch. I think I’ll go with the 135 or even maybe the 180mm. Image stabilized lenses do end up costing more so I’ve been trying to decide which one I’d use most.
Hi mate, the 135 is just beautiful, id always choose that if i could, the 70-200 is better if you need the flexibility of a zoom though. But if you dont need that the 135 is the better lens.
Do you use the long end of the 70-300 very often?
Sound advice, thanks!
This is great advices
f4 vs. f2.8... Seems like a close choice, perhaps boiling down to size/weight and price? I'd be interested in expert opinions.
i think id only get the 2.8 if you know you need it or you really want it. everyone else should get the f4 optically the only real difference is the f2.8 vs f4 depth of field and light but the lenses are equal in terms of performance otherwise for me.
Hi Martin,
I’ve just discovered your channel and I think you’re inspirational!
I was, for example thinking of “upgrading” my D6, but not anymore.
I have a question about this video. Is there a noticeable improvement between the original and Mark II versions of this lens?
Thank you.
I don’t think there is enough difference to buy the mark ii version
@@MartinCastein Thank you!
Great work as per… I’ve got the 70-200 and works great on my RP.. Am going on a solo landscape shoot in wales later this month.. what lens or lenses would you recommend… ? I’d really welcome some advice… I’ll be taking my 70-200 anyway.. cheers mate!!
id really get a 16-35 f4 IS as well, you could crop the gap from 35-70 then
I’ll see what I can get one for.. I’ve got a 24-105mm. Great advice..!
Oh .. have a great new year!!
Happy new year to you too buddy!
Hy Martin! Did you use this lens on Canon R mirrorless camera (with adapter)? If yes, there is any drwback in fosus accuracy/speed or image quality comparing with RF native lens?
It’s more accurate than on dslr and overall better probably not as fast as native rf glass but it’s native as such anyway as the adapter is canon so it all speaks the same language
Wow...just stumbled on to your channel. Great video...I'm a new subscriber! I was just thinking the same thing about the 70-200...on the 3 lens I want to get, if I go the 2.8 route on all 3, it will be an extra $3500 out of my pocket. I'm not a pro. With that $3500, I can buy a nice cabinet grade table saw ($1849) and a nice band saw ($1700) for my shop. Kindof a no brainer to me. I'm not a professional there either. Plus they are SOOOOOOO heavy! One of the three is a 15-35 but I might go 2.8 on that one...wouldn't it make sense in a wide angle lens as opposed to a telephoto to go 2.8? Thanks! Just getting back into it after a long time.
Paul
Thanks so much Paul! i think you should consider f4 on any lens you just need to think do you need 2.8, if you dont then no need to buy it.
I own the canon EOS 90D. Would you recommend this to me, I don't shoot that much in low light.
Yes why not!
The 2.8 is a nightmare & I sold it before I used it
I bought a 2.8 a long time ago, and I still love it... BUT with today's ISO ranges I think a 4.0 would serve me just as good, if not better.
Back when bought it (mainly for weddings) the extra stop did help me on quite a few occasions.
I think you have to judge between the two and how you use them, there is still a strong arguement for the 2.8 as well, i think the f4 these days is fine for wedding too, depends what camera you use though.
Ken Rockwell who has been around way before the web, says much the same about the f4 vs the f2.8.
Say what you like about Ken but he is the OG and certainly knows a good camera when he sees one.
@@clintnorthwood8058 Kind of my point, I'm on his website all the time.
Happy New year Martin. I use this lens on my 5D Classic. Love it. I have bought a 6D Classic now. Your videos cost me money 😅Keep up the good work sir.
Happy new year! I aim to cost you more during the year Steve....😎
@@MartinCastein 😂😂
I have the 70-200 F/4 USM and love it. Its a great lens. What I like about it most is its portability. I can put it in my backpack and not think about it being there. Sure the f/2.8 would be nice, but im very happy with the performance of the f/4. Great review!
You just sold a bunch of f4 lenses for Canon, they owe you brother! 😂 Ever point is valid too. Well said.
hahahah well that would be good, they should give me a cut..👀
I sold the 2.8 for the f4 IS, and I love it. As you said, for portraits I shoot 5.6-7.1, the 2.8 is crazy heavy. Great video, all the best mate.
Thanks Jay, yeah the 2.8 is very heavy just becomes a chore after a while for sure.
I did the same, f4 is a beast, with r3 iso is no problem. I dont miss anything about 2.8, I love the lightweight of f4, if I want more background blur lightroom can do it
I have this for portraits and i love it paired with my 6D.
My Canon EF F4L IS USM is not sharp at F4. I don't know what to do. Tested it on 3 different cameras, 7D Mk II, 1DX Mk II and EOS R.
It’s a demon when paired with my 6D
The 2.8 is nice for making the DSLR viewfinder brighter and aiding with DSLR AF.
The main advantage the f2.8 offers is focus speed and precision depending which body it is mounted on, for example the 1d line 5d mk3/4, which is mostly unimportant for portrait or still life but for any kind of action or sports the f2.8 is king and you have a better base for adding a 1.4x converter.
Which one to own is more a choice of purpose/useage/portability and not light or blur.
I sold my f4 for the 2.8 but sometimes wish I had both, I might add a 135 f2 one day.
Thank you for the content Martin. :-)
All my F/4 shots were sharp
Great advice, thank you. I am wondering if IBIS on new cameras can work as well as the IS in the lens? If that is the case, thank the non IS version could work like the IS one?
14/15/16 - 35mm wide angle zoom , 50mm prime and 70-200mm telezoom .. you can do almost anything and everything with those three lenses. Hugely versatile trio. Pick aperture that you need.
Each to his own … I cannot imagine going out without my small and discrete EF 135 F2 … with its unmatched Bokeh
Plus one on this set up, albeit in my case nowadays they are Nikon lenses, I use the 16-35/f4 VR a very underrated lens as everyone goes for the 14-24/f2.8, Nikon's AF-S 50/f1.4 a lovely lens but not the quickest AF and the gorgeous 70-200/f4 VR rated by many as better than Nikon's 70-200/f2.8 VR ii. A few years back, well actually many years back I had a Canon 10D (so much better than the Nikon D100 which was pants) to photograph football and athletics my son's after school activities, the 10D was used with the original Canon 70-200/f4 (no IS on the first model) backed up with Canon's 17-40 and 50/1.4. That was a nice tidy set-up and got me a good number of published images in the local papers and magazines of the era. So whilst the brand may have changed the basic set up has endured although there are a few other bits and bobs filling my kitbag.
Used one for years doing motorsports with a 7d. Great combo
Thanks James, i can imagine it works very well on a 7d.
I’ve got one it’s the best zoom in this range I’ve ever seen.
Got this lens two weeks ago after only being on the nifty fifty with my 6D before. Damn this lense is outstandingly good 😮
It is isn’t it! Wonderful lens and light weight for what it is
@@MartinCastein absolutely, it really feels like a game changer for me 🤩
no one will say, "this photo dont have enough bokeh".
Very practical and helpful video.
Brilliant presentation, thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
I literally just bought one of these from MPB
Really wanted the 2.8 but the size and weight put me off
And you post this backing up my choice
Thanks Martin happy new year
Happy new year Vincent!
I ended up buying the original 80-200 f2.8 thus solving the financial part of the debate. However it is still heavy, it is also noisy, it is much less corrected for chromatic aberrations, and it only zooms out to 80mm. On the plus side: it is much thinner than a 70-200, many say it has a more pleasant bokeh, it is black, so it doesn't attract that much attention, it is very sharp wide open at all focal ranges and as I mentioned it was very cheap costing me only around 300 euros. I only needed to tighten some loose screws on it and it is in mint condition.
Ive never used one but it sounds interesting, i think you have got something thats good for you and works.
100% on this. When new to the game I went for the f2.8 however when I started on Weddings I found my goto was always f4 or f8. I now realise I could have got away with the f4 version.
Yeah the f4 is enough for most, the 2.8 is excellent though, just most people get fed up with the size and weight of it that needs endless compromises vs the f4, id certainly carry the 2.8 if i have to though.
Nice review Martin, I'll be saving for one of these, f4 is lenses.
Does it render well with the 5D?
It would go very well with my 6 and 7D, would be very nice reach on the crop sensor.
There's a version ii of this lens, they are alot more expensive, have you ant experience using the latest version Martin?
Your marching on now m8, soon be at 10k subs! Woohoo 🙌😁👍
Thanks! I hope to get to 10k soon enough, the f4 is is great for any canon camera, its just one of those lenses. Ive not used the mark ii but i doubt its worth the extra unless you get a good deal one one.
Would you recommend this for sports photography? Specifically basketball and tennis.
Just bought one. Thanks. Paired with my D90
Good evening Master,
I've been following her (from Italy) for some time and I must say that I'm learning a lot. I have a Canon M50, but after following several of his videos, I purchased a Canon 5D to learn how to evaluate and photograph well, for the moment I am very satisfied, thank you very much. If you could kindly give it to me. any advice, I would be very grateful. If I mount a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens on my Canon 5D, positioned on a tripod, I can manage to get some good shots of a football match (I have the possibility of staying on the pitch, so no net in half)? Thanks for your time.
Hi Martin, thanks for another balanced review.
I'm trying to decide whether to buy a used 70-200 f/4 L IS or 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, for use as a landscape telephoto.
Nice problem to have, I know, but used EF lens prices from the quality used outlets have dropped significantly in the last six months.
Would it be viable to occasionally crop to an effective 200-250 on the 70-200 without losing much resolution using a 6D?
Any advice gratefully received...
Yeah I’d go for then 70-200 and just crop if you need more. I think 70-200 is enough and Better lens overall
@@MartinCastein Thanks Martin - I managed to get a good used copy today. Your review is spot on: this is an excellent lens, both in astounding sharpness and quality of image rendering when using a Canon 6D Mk 1. I tried a 70-300L as well, but I agree that the 70-200 L IS is an even better lens. It's very easy to do reasonable image crop without any perceptible loss of resolution. I'm really looking forward to doing lots more telephoto landscape shots using this lens 🙂
Somehow I landed on one of your videos. You are so convincing on this lens. I think I'm going to get one. Thanks bro..... I subscribed!
Awesome video, so much fact and no BS, loved it. Thanks
Much appreciated!
I just picked up the 70-200mm 2.8 lens due to wanting to photograph my son in his indoor/outdoor track sporting events. Previously I was shooting a 55-200mm f/4-5.6 and felt that my ISO was creeping up too high for my likes (loss of detail on overcast days/indoors). I really considered the f/4 lens for weight but I just didn't feel like there was a significant drop in aperture from f/5.6 to f/4 at 200mm. Thoughts?
Dont worry about it Sean, all the 70-200 lenses are excellent, for indoor track id be using a 2.8 not the f4, you made the right choice. 100%.
@@MartinCastein thank you!
Faster lens for faster shutter speed to freeze movement.
Thank you for this informative video ! The 70-200 F4 IS is my cheapest and one of my sharpest lenses. Totally agree with your point regarding studio portraits. I was blown away when I used it for the first time in that context. If I need a longer lens and I know its going to be less light, I bring the 135 F2 along. That's another relatively cheap and very sharp L lens that does'nt take up much space.
Nice video thank you. I usually shoot micro four thirds but with my full frame body I’ve switched to buying f4 zooms because I realized I was happy with say an f2 shallow depth of field on m43 so f4 full frame has the same look and lighter weight. One of my favorite m43 lenses for portraits is the Olympus 75/1.8 and I can achieve a similar look on full frame with an f4 70-200 plus more convenience of zooming and not changing lenses. And for landscape it doesn’t matter because I’m always stopped down past f4 anyways. Only drawback is when I want to focus through an ND filter for long exposures (I’m lazy) it can be more difficult on f4 because it’s just too dark.
If you are really skint look up a Canon EF 70-210mm f3.5 -f4.5 USM (not the odd slider looking one). I got this as my first bigger zoom for like £60 and I was shocked how well it worked even on a crop sensor. It's pretty compact in length and weight, so the lack of IS isnt that bad. The bokeh at the far end is lovely too. Worth a try for little cost.
the debate as old as time itself
I don't usually shoot at 2.8 i don't do events or concerts. Thank you for making me consider the f4 first unless I NEED 2.8
I just picked up the F4 L IS, and I find it great. I use it outside. My friends have the 2.8 and WOW yes it sure is heavy.
Looking forward to trying out in London in a few weekends.
Other great video one lens I don’t have been thinking about adding one to my kit
I used to have one, but I always felt I missed the f/2.8. Sold it and got a 2.8 IS II when it was released. Sold that and shot almost exclusively with primes for almost 10 years. Looking at a 2.8 again. I want the larger aperture for getting faster shutter speed. And on my old cameras there’s not iso enough for bringing shutter speed to faster than 1/400 or whatever I feel I need for moving subjects. The extra stop doubles my shutter speed.
For me it’s also a question of extenders. I like bringing an extender in my pocket if I need it. It’s a reduction of image quality, but it can save the day.
Great content as usual.
More great info!
Glad it was helpful!
That model is absolutly beautifull
I've got both the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS MkII lenses. I hardly ever use the latter, it's virtually new as I've hardly used it due to its size and weight. Having said that, the thing is oustanding, even astounding at times. Wanna sell both and 'settle' for the RF f/2.8 version.
A more interesting question is: f/4 IS vs. f/4 IS MkII
I’d like to know too actually
Great discussion. Many thanks! 🙏🙏😊😊
I respect your opinion, but I'd never trade my 70-200 2.8 for an f4. Probably the best lens Canon makes!
I think it just depends on what you use it for. I wanted people to see the f4 was a good option for a lot of people too. I respect your opinion too!
Thank you for this. I made up my mind
Hi there, Bob here, I've been following your channel for some time, and i must say i like it a lot, so to stay on the topic of this video I'll be using a canon 7d mark 1, and im debating between a 70-200 f 4 IS and a 70-200 f 2.8 non IS as my first lens, purpose will be general photography, portraits and some wildlife and my kids profesional outdoor soccer games ,Im thinking since the 7D mk 1 is an old camera it will benefit more from the f 2.8, ( brighter viewfinder and faster AF acquisition ), what would you think? Thanks ever so much in advance.
Thanks Bob! Yes your circumstances I’d suggest the 2.8 as well.
Hey, great review!
Anyways, I have a chace to purchase this lenses IS mk1 variation in great optical and mechanical condition, no internal dust, mold or scratches. The price is 500€ including the hood, tripod collar and an uv-filter. The serial number indicates that this particular lens is manufactured in 2006.
Is the price okay considering the age? Thanks!
its probably a bit expensive maybe £400
I am a huge fan of primes, and how often would you use the wider end of the 70-200 vs would the 200 prime work well for a wedding? Particularly if you have a second camera, would it work well to have a wide prime plus 200 prime running together instead? EDIT: especially something like the 5DsR on the wide side for unlimited cropping, so to speak?
I think it depends on what you shoot, im a fan of primes too, i think for weddings a 70-200 just saves the day so often its virtually a must have if you are shooting high volumes, i used to shoot 40 weddings a year and at least 10 of those id find churches where im in difficult locations, being able to zoom lets me catch different compositions from the same spot, for non wedding photographers primes are probably fine.
Is the IS version also better optically than the non is one or the difference is only the stabilisation?
The non is is fractionally better but you should get the is version even if you have to save a bit longer for it as the is helps so much
Interesting video, Martin! For those on low budget, or if you don't use it much, Canon FD 70-210 f4 is nice, it's mf, but a push&pull, so you zoom and focus simoultaniously. Not for Canon EF mount though. Nikon series E 70-210 f4 is also nice (only good series E in my opinion) both better than Minolta beer can, I think. Happy new year!
Happy new year to you too Kalle!!!!
Used on a modern body with ibis its a really wonderful lens
I was wondering how it performs with internal IBIS. I just got a r6 mark II and I'm finding these EF 70-200 non IS for dirt cheap maybe I should try one out
At what length are you using for portraits 85?
any, by mostly top half or sat down full length.
I dropped and broke my Sigma 70-200 2.8 on a wedding shoot. I often shot at 3.2/3.5 to keep the iso down so never considered the f4. The Sigma however is considerably lighter than the Canon and every time I used a Canon I hated the weight of it.
I started using my 100mm f2.8 as a replacement while I saved for a new one and now haven’t missed the 70-200 at all really. The 100 is so light and as I have a 24-70 on my second body I was often using the 70-200 between 85&150mm so now I feel like I have a nice light and inexpensive prime alternative. The 100mm being a macro lens is slower to find focus at times and the bokeh isn’t quite as nice but it’s a small trade off.
I may take this advice and look at an f4 as I do occasionally want that extra reach, especially at weddings, and since I now have an r6, the iso increase really isn’t an issue.
Great video and great reasoning. Appreciate it 👍🏼
i had the 100mm as well its a superb lens, i prefer a zoom for tele shots at weddings but the 100 is excellent overall.
Have you tried the 135/2L? It’s a wonderful lens and one of the best priced L lenses. It has been a favourite of mine since I bought it more than 10 years ago.
Thank you for the video.
I bought a used copy of this lens today in good condition. As a hobbyist; would like to use it for portraiture, street, landscape and wildlife photography as well with a 1.4x converter for the last genre. Today I snapped an indoor portrait for trial in the camera shop in ambient light at f4, 1/1000 shutter speed and ISO 12800. The image is not bad at all.
In the afternoon did some panning shots of running cars on highways. Those images are really mind-soothing. In both the cases body was 1D Mark IV.
I fully agree with you that the f4 version is more convenient than the f2.8 lens which I rented and used previously. Compared to that; this is a welcome change.
Did you try it on a good old 7D (or similar/newer) for the 1.6x crop than using a teleconverter? The cost would be the same and crop is the usual choice for wildlife folks.
@@jabezhaneyes I did. I own a 7D as well mark 1. It works great on this body too. However, I prefer using a 1.4x for longer reach when I use this combo for wildlife photography.
I tested this lens on all categories of Canon DSLRs as I own them all. It's fantastic with all of those. The only exception is when it's paired with a 2x converter. Then I have slower AF on one point with 1DIV & 5DIII only. Just tested this but don't use this combo.
Thank you for chipping in.
@@quazisanjeed6395 Marvellous! Sounds good! I own a 6D and a 7D and they complement each other well. The 7D mainly for sunny outdoor events though...
Thank you so much for this video!
Can anyone tell me, which is better, in terms of image quality, sharpness, Canon ef 70-200 f4 L non IS or Canon ef 135 f2 L? But the Canon ef 100 f2 what do you think?
the 135mm then the 70-200 then the 100f2
@@MartinCastein Thanks for your advice!
@@nickk1683 you are welcome
Why not both!?
absolutely for those that can afford it, no problem!
Enjoyed the vid. Thanks for creating and sharing it. I have a Tamron EF 70-210mm f/4 Di VSC USD lens. I presume your general comments about differences between f/2.8 versus f/4 lenses also applies to non-Canon lens of same focal length. If not, please elaborate. Otherwise, I will apply your vid to my 3rd party lens as well. Cheers!
dont see any reason why it shouldnt apply to the tamron as well!
The Tamron is noticeably heavier than the Canon F4 if the specs and my kitchen scales are correct. I've got the Tamron and use it on a 6D (where it is superb) and a 7D (where the focus at 70-100 is a bit, err, off). At the moment I'm considering swapping to the Canon F4 which would hopefully solve the AF issues on the 7D. Most of my shooting is outdoors in daylight, where I figured F4 would be enough and I wouldn't be lugging that big heavy F2.8 around. Much easier on the pocket too.... The Tamron F2.8 is a big, heavy beast too..
@@nicktheobald1694 Hi Nick, the canon will very likely solve the focus issues.
@@MartinCastein thanks for the advice - I've part ex'd the Tamron on a 70-200 f4 L IS and very happy with the results. The Canon lens is also much better to handle - smaller, lighter and the zoom ring is in the best place, at hand not right at the end of the barrell ! Thank you again.
Would the 70-200 f4 be a nice match for my 6D ? Loved the video
Yes for sure but I’d get the IS version if you can
@@MartinCastein Thanks I found a non IS version but do you think I should hold out for the IS?
@@peterkim7571 Id hold out for the IS version
Hello Martin, congrats for the awesome reviews of lenses and camera gear, you inspire us all! I am currently using the Canon 70-200 f/4L USM non IS version from the early '90s and the lens is just great! I am using it for weddings from 135 to 200mm at f/4 constantly without any issues and it is sharp, the focus is fast and snappy. I previously had the 70-200 f/2.8 but the lens was very heavy for me and after 8 to 12 hours of photo events each day that lens just tired me and I couldn't properly work and my photo skills somewhat suffered. Then I decided to sell that lens and for the money I got for it I purchased the Canon 135mm f/2L lens and the 70-200 f/4L USM. The 70-200 f/4L USM is very light, narrow and it fits in your pocket (without the hood). The percentage of photos you get in focus is very high; at f/4 for portraits and for blurred background it is just magic (not as magic as the 135mm f/2L but that's a story for another day), I can use it for sport events (soccer match, basket match etc.) weddings, portraits, family portrait, product photography. It is the only zoom lens in my Canon kit, I am a prime lens photographer but there is something special about this lens. Stopped down to f/9 to f/11 for product photography, or in studio or for landscape it becomes on par with very modern Canon lenses. It is a lens overlooked by many but should be used by all because we think of it as a "legacy" / old lens but combined it with any Canon camera 5D III, 5D IV, 5DSR, R6, R5 and it will blow your mind. Don't let it fool you that it is an old lens it is extremely good. I personally use it on Canon 6D and 1DX (Mark I) these are my cameras still for 2023 and I consider this combo just epic. cheers!
Thanks for telling me, always interesting to read other people’s stories
I love this lens with the 2x teleconverter for astro. Absolutely fantastic combo. IS not the quietest but very solid performance.
Thanks for the review Martin. I was looking at the 2.8IS ii which I have hired a number of times, but your video is definitely food for thought.
no problem, i think if you actually need the 2.8 get it but question if you actually need it
There’s a lot of hype about the f2.8. I ended buying it but only use it about twice a year due to the weight. With modern sensors and lowlight AF I think I would now get the f4.
Yeah so many photographers are still stuck in 2003 "You can only use ISO100" land. When you can effectively get noiseless ISO into high four figure numbers...why worry too much?