LensRentals Review of 70-200L F4 IS II......

https://www.lensrental​s.com …-canon-70-200mm-f4-is-ii/

"The quick summary is these are simply outstandingly consistent from copy-to-copy; the least variance of any zoom we’ve ever tested. f/4 lenses have less variance than wider apertures, and telephoto lenses tend to have less variance, so we expected it to be good. But this is far less variance than any of the other 70-200mm f/4 lenses (including previous Canon lenses) we’ve tested, and it’s really not close."

"It’s really, really good. It’s extremely consistent with low sample variation. Optically it’s everything I hoped for. Actual reviews are starting to trickle in, and if the IS and autofocus are as improved as the optics, this should be a home run for Canon."

well the v1 of the f4 IS was already stellar, about just as good as the 2.8 II so i'd be surprised if this newer version wasn't at least outstanding

about what I expected for performance but the fact that roger found very little variation shows canon really dialed this lens in. and it is the best with the Nikon being close and the sony a distant third.

btw, i'm thinking about renting the 14 1.8 for MW trip to the eastern sierras. do you shoot yours wide open for astro or stopped down?

ed rader wrote in post #18676031
about what I expected for performance but the fact that roger found very little variation shows canon really dialed this lens in. and it is the best with the Nikon being close and the sony a distant third.

btw, i'm thinking about renting the 14 1.8 for MW trip to the eastern sierras. do you shoot yours wide open for astro or stopped down?

yea it really seems like canon's knocked it out of the park with this one, if it weren't for the fact that i got an amazing deal on my 2.8 II at the time i would've happily gone with the f4 (v1), good to see the QC with this new version

the sigma 14 i shoot basically wide open, i stop it down to f2 as there is actually a noticeable improvement with vignetting

image quality wise do expect some coma and astigmatism towards the very peripheral of the frame, but nothing that bothers (me anyway), some minor field curvature out to the extreme corners that i can see causing a bit of softness otherwise it's sharp throughout the frame wide open, distortion control is fantastic when you get your levels correct, CA basically non-existent, i find the toughest part is actually nailing that critical focus which obviously impacts the coma/astigmatism issue as well

having used/tested a few 14mm (14 II, samyang 2.4/2.8) and owning the sigma for about a year now i still maintain the opinion that it's the best 14mm money can buy (tho for coma the samyang is still ahead)

i will be very curious to see what you think tho especially with you already owning the excellent 16-35 2.8 III

thanks man. if I could get two more stops or even one I think the sigma 14 would be worth renting!

ed rader wrote in post #18676056
thanks man. if I could get two more stops or even one I think the sigma 14 would be worth renting!

too easy man, i doubt there is going to be anything between the 2 lenses sharpness wise but i think you'll probably noticed much improved vignetting which when taken into account may net you that 2 stops of light you're hoping (i've read the 16-35III has quite pronounced vignetting but don't have personal experience with it)

yeah it has vignetting bigtime. not real concerned about that. more concerned about shooting at lower iso and getting a longer exposure

ed rader wrote in post #18676077
yeah it has vignetting bigtime. not real concerned about that. more concerned about shooting at lower iso and getting a longer exposure

true yea my go to setting personally with the sigma is 15 sec f/2 ISO 6400 for the MW gets some great data to play with side note how damn good is 5D4's high ISO haha

really? I would have thought 25s and iso 3200 or maybe even 1600

ed rader wrote in post #18676087
really? I would have thought 25s and iso 3200 or maybe even 1600

Yea if I’m being absolutely critical I find that 15 sec is about as much as I can go if I want to keep stars pin point, not sure if it’s because of the higher pixel density of 5D4 or possibly position of MW in relation to celestial pole at rise/set but I used to happily use the 500 rule when shooting with my old 5D3 (but I never did much MW landscape with the 5D3 either) and have no issues

Exposure wise I like to push the histogram a bit to the right then dragging it back in post instead of the other way around hence the higher ISO, I find it to work really well especially with how great 5D4 is at handling higher ISO in the first place

With larger diameter I won't to try the new lens compared to my Version 1 and see how feels and disperses the weight on each of the Gripped 5D Mark III's. Everything else looks good so far. Best part, the price is very attractive for a nice "treat". Love the f/4 L IS's for Travel.

Nick -- I can see a difference if i'm looking but feel no difference. honestly I forget its a new lens sometimes.

Ed,

A sort of ignorant question. I have a 70-300L that has served me well.. up until I got a 100-400Lii. I've been keeping it around as a travel lens when we have to fly somewhere and it won't be a birding trip. I guess I'm thinking the extra 100mm might be a plus.

Any thoughts on that strategy vs. the lighter 70-200 f/4 IS ii?

I owned the 70-300L for about three years and would carry it when I thought no wildlife would be involved or long distance landscapes.. the good thing was in case there was wildlife I did have the extra 100mm reach. the reason I switched back to the original f4 IS was because I shoot a lot of longish or long or exposures and with the 70-300L I had inconsistent results. also I owned three different copies of the 70-300L and I always felt the 70-200L f4 IS was sharper. and I know for a fact the the new 70-200L f4 IS II is sharper.

so I guess it comes down to how badly you need the extra 100mm and the added sharpness.

ed rader wrote in post #18676702
I owned the 70-300L for about three years and would carry it when I thought no wildlife would be involved or long distance landscapes.. the good thing was in case there was wildlife I did have the extra 100mm reach. the reason I switched back to the original f4 IS was because I shoot a lot of longish or long or exposures and with the 70-300L I had inconsistent results. also I owned three different copies of the 70-300L and I always felt the 70-200L f4 IS was sharper. and I know for a fact the the new 70-200L f4 IS II is sharper.

so I guess it comes down to how badly you need the extra 100mm and the added sharpness.

Thanks, Ed. I guess I could use a 1.4Xiii with the 70-200 f/4 and get similar or even better results.

Tough call. My 70-300L seems to be as sharp as my 100-400L ii at 300mm. At least with the bird photographs I have, though I don't have very many at 300mm with the 100-400Lii.