Image Quality of the 70-200 f/4 IS

I've been thinking about getting a long zoom to compliment my 24-70 Mark II for my 6D camera. If money and size were no object I'd get the 70-200 2.8IS Mark II, but I can't justify the size or afford the price of this lens.

I don't necessarily need the 2.8 aperture, but what I'm not willing to compromise on is image quality. I had initially written off the 70-200 f/4IS because while it had great sharpness, a lot of the pictures in the lens sample thread seemed less contrasty...especially when compared to the 70-200 Mark II picture thread. Then someone pointed out this was more dependant on the ability of the photographers, rather than the lens itself.

Specifically for those that have OWNED BOTH LENSES (70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II and 70-200 f/4 IS). If aperture and everything else were equal, do you notice a difference in the color, contrast, and image quality between these two lenses?

Until the MKII 2.8 IS came out the 70-200 F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom lens. The mark II 2.8 is the state of the art. But having had the f4IS I would highly recommend it, its sharp, has good color and contrast (I'm not sure what you are seeing there), and its considerably lighter than the 2.8 variants.

I've not owned the II but I've used it for a short time and Ive owned the f4IS several times (70-200 is not my favorite focal range). IMO, the f4IS is the equal of the 2.8II in all aspects of IQ. I'd decide on price, need for 2.8, weight and filter size (in that order) instead...if there are any differences in IQ you'd be splitting hairs. If the sample threads show otherwise, it's probably due to the fact that fewer less-competent/new users are willing to drop the dough for a $2k lens than a $1k lens.

KristyT2i wrote in post #16084782
Specifically for those that have OWNED BOTH LENSES (70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II and 70-200 f/4 IS). If aperture and everything else were equal, do you notice a difference in the color, contrast, and image quality between these two lenses?

No, the IQ is the same and after owning the F4 IS for years and now owning the 2.8 MII for years I can tell you that at least for me, I sort of wish I kept the F4 IS. It does everything the MKII does except for F 2.8. The bokeh is slightly better on the MKII but not really enough to justify the weight and size.

Even pixel peeping (atleast nature images) I can't say if one lens has more contrast than the other. Having said that, the 70-200 MK II thread has some images taken by skilled photographers so that might have had something to do with it.

I haven't seen an image in the 24-70 MK II thread that has made me wow, or at least I do not remember that doesn't mean its not the best in the range, at least when in the hands of someone who knows hows to use it.

The F4LIS is a great lens, sure the IS is a bit loud and the bokeh is not as smooth as its bigger brother, but its one hell of a lens, its half the weight and price. Its performance is on par with MKII not half of it. That makes it a supreme value unless one needs F2.8.

It has outstanding image quality. Photozone says the following in it's review...

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS is the very best zoom lens tested to date in Canon mount. The resolution figures (center/border) at all focal length and all tested aperture settings are nothing short of stunning and also as good as the best fix-focals in this range. At f/11 there´s the usual decline in quality due to diffraction - this is a physical limit. Truly remarkable.

Here's the entire review...

http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

Ok guys, thanks for the help. I'll order it today.

I've been going back and fourth between the 70-200 f/4IS, 135L (single focal length, no IS, probably will be upgraded soon), and 70-300L IS (unpleasant bokeh, and variable aperature)

KristyT2i wrote in post #16084979
Ok guys, thanks for the help. I'll order it today.

I've been going back and fourth between the 70-200 f/4IS, 135L (single focal length, no IS, probably will be upgraded soon), and 70-300L IS (unpleasant bokeh, and variable aperature)

FYI as much as I love the 70-200 f4is, the 135L is my go to lens.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16084986
FYI as much as I love the 70-200 f4is, the 135L is my go to lens.

The thing is, I'd be using this lens for travel as well, so I think the zoom would be more useful. Not to mention it doesn't have IS. In this range IS is very important to me.

I'll probably grab a 85 1.4 or a 135l (if it gets upgraded), sometime in the future for the background blur in portraits.

You want the EF 70-200/4 L IS !!