When I was working professionally, I used the 2.8 version. As a news photographer, I never knew what conditions I would face. The 2.8 gave me the best chances for success. Now retired, I much prefer the f4 version. I have the USM IS version 1. I tried a version 2 f4. For the cost to trade up, I felt there was not enough difference between v.1 and v. 2.
Brought out the OG 70-200 last weekend for a sporting event. On a crop sensor, this has the reach, focus speed and sharpness and color I was looking for. Still as pleased with the images from the lens today as I was 12 years ago. It's the reason I still have a 70D.
My 70D shutter died and camera won't turn on... Canon does not support the fix any longer and I'm stuck to pay for it to be repaired but I opted to buy a like new condition 70D on eBay. So far so good. Shutter count only a couple thousand. I had my original camera for roughly 10 years. So upset when It died.... But Very surprised to get another for just over $300.00 Made lots of great memories with it with different lenses... 18mm to 135mm STM kit lens 24mm f2.8, 50mm stm f1.8 10mm-18mm stm Tamrom 70mm-300mm And recently, Sigma 17mm-50mm 2.8... Checking out this review I saw your comment I think I do definitely need a 70 -200mm... Just trying to narrow it down between which F4 versus a 2.8 to see if it's worth the extra money. Sure It will put my Tamron to shame...you lose some reach but gain a better quality image.
The original one (non-IS) gives a lot more bang for the buck. Used to shoot college soccer games and it had NEVER let me down. It's only flaw is the lack of weather sealing.
I might add.......I own the 2006 model and have many years of satisfied use on it . But when I tried the 2016 version the first thing I noticed is how silent the image stabilization was compared to my older 2006 model. Secondly, I saw a substantial improvement in FLARE RESISTANCE on the 2016 model..... also, the newer version also had slightly more saturated colors .......and last, the FEEL of the rings and how it operates, for me, is superior on the newer version. If I was to buy either now I would DEFINITELY buy the 2016 version
Very helpful vid, just picked up a 2nd hand 2006 model for 500 US dollars with 12 month warranty from a camera store. Saved some good dollars thanks bud.
Thanks for the vid. Still using 06, was thinking i made a bad choice not upgrading, but your case made it clear. 10+ years later. Beach wedding F/L IS USM. 06 Still killing it with Ai Lightroom assistance. More $ is not always better if skilled. Case closed. A+
From my tests, the IS II has worse bokeh, vignetting, chromatic aberration and distortion than the first IS. The only impromevents were a slightly bump in sharpness/contrast and a slightly bump in IS performance. For me, that uses it as a portrait lens, the version II is useless, specially because of the bad bokeh. The first IS will still be around my camera bag and version II is going back to the store.
I often used to buy lenses looking for the next best thing. That stopped for me when I bought the IS ver 1 and a 24-70 2.8 ii. I put them on separate 5D3 bodies around 2013 and haven't bought any gear since. They just work.
I am looking at the 70-200, for me a good used lens would be acceptable but which one? IS would be my main draw toward a second or third model, and on the strength of this review, a good 2nd model would be my best option. Thank you for a good solid neutral review of Canon's 70-200 options. The heavier 2.8 when usage, price, and weight are thrown into the mix makes it too expensive so the F4 Mk II is what I would lean towards. Thank you for this excellent overview. Ps Just found a good-condition Mk II example.
I own the F4L non IS lens, it's really a fabulous lens, great for landscape photography. I'm considering buying the 2.8l is ii, they are being sold used for around 1200 now. The F4 is great but there has been times when the 2.8 aperture would of been helpful to keep iso down. Cant go wrong either way, they're all sharp and magnificent lenses.
It ended up being an easy decision for me between 2006 IS version and 2018 IS II. I was able to get the former on sale for $930, but the 2018 IS II is still going for $1,700. These are Canadian prices, effective April 2021. Not sure why the huge discrepancy, but the $750 premium for the latest version is not remotely worth the money. Thanks for the video.
Quite true, but this seems to be a lab-only test. I have the old IS version and have tested the IS II. There are major improved factors. The build quality is slightly better (you mentioned the zoom ring, it always bothered me, this is fixed). The AF (though it was fast and accurate already) had been improved incredibly, easily comparable to the f2.8 IS II. And the IS is also 2 stops better, which for me meant that the framing was static at 200mm, handheld. So, I don't agree with the 10% improvement, you virtually get a same quality lens as the f2.8 IS II in every aspect (besides the f-stop), which tells something. I do not plan to upgrade though, I bought my f4 IS for 600$ almost new.
Tanks I got a used 1st generation in really good shape for $300 I wanted the f2.8 but at this price it was impossible not to get it. So far so good, but to great
Thanks for the video, great review. I got the non IS a while ago, and it's a great lense. I just have to shoot over 250 though cuz I got shaking hands. ;)
For people who are thinking about the older 70-200 f/4, both the IS and Non IS. They both have issue on focusing ring slipping, and yes they are commonly found, RU-vid it. I just send mine to Canon for repair, costs me $400 Canadian dollars. They replaced the USM assembly and decentering collar.
5:06 I really appreciate this comparison video, but the 2006 IS version is absolutely sharper in this image than the 1999 version. I know it's probably because you're looking at the actual Rubik's text (but that's not exactly where the lens grabbed focus). Look at the edges of where each image grabbed focus.
@@izombie98 with my 2006 IS version, I have not found any loss in quality when using it with a tripod, even when shooting longer exposures. Always the option to turn it off but it almost always helps.
Very nice showdown, great explanation there, even put some of your thoughts in the end with really strong points. Now i understand why my friend chose the original one, since he's more into video rather than photo, and almost always put on stick or gimbal
Nice review… the ISii has 3 position IS rather than 2 position on the 2006 model… I have read position 3 is better for video? Is that the case? What is the difference? Is it just quieter? Thanks
Nice comparison of Image-quality. But In my opinion you totally missed to show the difference between the two IS-versions. The quality of version II is much better and gives you a lot mor stabilization. In numbers its 2 stops more... you really can experience the difference in real life. One still have to question himself if it's worth to buy version II - specially when you already have version I and all the filters... but in my opinion when you have non yet, buy either non IS or version II - except you get a really amazing deal on version I.
The IS II has worse bokeh, vignetting, chromatic aberration and distortion than the first IS. The only impromevents were a slightly bump in sharpness and a slightly bump in IS performance. For me, that uses it as a portrait lens, the version II is useless, specially because of the bad bokeh. The first IS will still be around my camera bag and version II is going back to the store.
I'm an American living in South Africa and just ordered the 2006 model of this lens from a camera store here. It will be here in a couple of days. Got it for my wife for Christmas. She has always wanted an L lens and I was able to get this lens in very good condition for only $370 or in this economy 7,000 Rand. I think it was part of a Black Friday Special. Thanks for putting out this great videos Gerald. We learn alot from you. God bless and.... Merry Christmas! Ho Ho Ho..... Lol.
I've have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non IS for years, it costs a fraction of the Canon f4, and it does a pretty good job. For some reason it appears smaller than the Canon. I wish Canon made a black version, and I'd be all over it. The white one makes you look like, and get treated like, a Pap!…
Can you comment on how loud IS is on the new one? I used a 2006 F4IS version and found the IS to be noticeably loud especially when doing video. The F2.8 IS version was much quieter when I tried it. Thanks for a great review!
Ha. There's always someone who asks a question I never thought to cover in my video! You get the title this time. 😃👌 I don't think I really heard it, but let me have another listen, be right back... Okay, I think I might have heard it a little, but it's pretty quiet in my opinion. I really had to listen. I don't think it's any louder than the f2.8 IS II that I have, if that helps.
oh bruh had to sub just because of your table of contents that is soooooooo respectful with your viewer damn I wish this was a rule hahah (actually I wanted youtube to have the in video chapters that po**hub has)
If you own a more modern Canon that has IBIS like the R10/R7/R5 etc it’s a no brainier…go for the original. Only drawback is having no weather sealing, but has never let me down and I have shot in base weather lots !!! but I am careful.
I’m currently considering the 2018 for Motorsports. Good idea or should I be opting for the f2.8? I do a lot of panning and sometimes shoot at 1/1600 in daylight. Not always too bright in the U.K.!
Great comparison between the 3. I really want the MKII IS, however the price difference is around £350 in the UK between MKI & MKII, I'm leaning towards the MKI IS however... is the IS really that loud?
It does make a bit of noise, yeah. It kinda sounds like a little hamster running around in the lens. I don't find it to be too much of a problem in most scenarios, because the lens is intended to be used at a distance away anyway, but you probably wouldn't want to record audio from an on-camera mic with that lens equipped. Hope that helps. Newer ones are quieter, but not worth paying extra if the noise won't affect your shooting situations.
not something you can test on the bench easily.. but i reckon the VR version break more often.. i like the elements to be glued hard in place with no fragile mechanism - dont wnt blur? stills use 1/200 video? tripod/heavy rig
gerald, do you know if mode iii in IS II works on the EOS R line? The current issue we are facing with adapting EF lenses to the EOS R is that somehow the IS is active all the time. I want to know if mode III deals with that issue.
Just bought the older version for $475, and a 2x teleconverter for $320, to use with my APS-C camera for the upcoming eclipse in April. Should give me an equivalent of 640mm.
Hi Gerald IS is more important for walking photography? Can u help me find is or non is 70-200mm lense I don’t want to spend more money on is lense what is the great difference on is or non is? Please let me help to find out thanks for ur video it was great
1:31 Reality reminder On release in 2006 the f/4 IS lens was widely lauded as the finest zoom lens Canon has made till then. It brought to the table not only IS but improved IQ. I remember, I was there. In 2023, the problem with the IS Mk II lens is the RF equivalent lens. I am looking to sell my IS lens and then go with an RF version.
