Anyone using Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS Zoom?

[jpmulligan]

I am currently using the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 APO with my 1Ds and for the most part I have been happy with it, however it is not an IS lens and I am finding that my hands are getting a bit shakier these days. I do a lot of portraiture where I want to blur the background and keep the eyes crystal sharp, and I think a max aperture of F4 would still give me some of that.

I have considered the Canon L 2.8 version also, but I would just as soon do without the extra weight. Has anyone used any of these lenses comparatively that would care to make a recommendation. I figure that the F4 IS lens would get me a couple of extra stops (shutter speed wise) over the Sigma, and I am hoping the optics would be more pleasing. From what I've read, the boquet on the Canon F4 is considered fairly pleasing.

Any opinions?

[martin.storz]

Yesterday I had the chance to take some photos with the Canon EF 70-200 4.0 IS (on a D5).

Lens and camera are well balanced. The lens focuses quick and precise even under dark conditions.
With open aperture pictures are sharp and crisp.

You can have a look on a picture taken with 1/40 sec at 200mm, what I never would have done with an other lens on:

http://www.thepubliceyeblog.blogspot.com/

But be carefull, normally people (head) move fast, so my experience is to be on the save side portraits shortest time is around !/125 of faster.

[Christopher]

Yesterday I had the chance to take some photos with the Canon EF 70-200 4.0 IS (on a D5).

Lens and camera are well balanced. The lens focuses quick and precise even under dark conditions.
With open aperture pictures are sharp and crisp.

You can have a look on a picture taken with 1/40 sec at 200mm, what I never would have done with an other lens on:

http://www.thepubliceyeblog.blogspot.com/

But be carefull, normally people (head) move fast, so my experience is to be on the save side portraits shortest time is around !/125 of faster.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, I have both, the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 4.0 IS, both are good, but the 4.0 is sharper and I like it much more. I have it now for 2 months and I never have picked up the 2.8 Version again, not even for Wildlife. Why ? First it is so better to handle, and I don't really miss the stop, the IS is also better than on the 2.8 version. As long as you don't need the 2.8 all the time you really should get the 4.0 great lens.

I use it with my 1DsMk2, 5 D and EOS 3.

[BJL]

Ok, I have both, the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 4.0 IS, both are good, but the 4.0 is sharper ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting. I hope you mean sharper at equal f-stop (like f/4), not sharper wide open?

I can believe it.  I have long thought that the far higher usable ISO of DSLRs will lead to a shift from f/2.8 to f/4 zooms for all but extreme low light/high speed needs, and Canon is showing signs of this. Apart from the great reduction in weight and cost, good, aberrations are probably easier to control in designs of smaller maximum aperture.

[Christopher]

Interesting. I hope you mean sharper at equal f-stop (like f/4), not sharper wide open?

I can believe it.  I have long thought that the far higher usable ISO of DSLRs will lead to a shift from f/2.8 to f/4 zooms for all but extreme low light/high speed needs, and Canon is showing signs of this. Apart from the great reduction in weight and cost, good, aberrations are probably easier to control in designs of smaller maximum aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes sharper at 4 and all the way down, also at 32 miuch better.

There are a lot of benefits from the 4.0. I mean it is much lighter, so why bother with something so haevy which doesn't give you any benefits. (except DOF) The IS is much better I can take sharper pictures with the 4.0 than with the 2.8 with IS on.

[John_Black]

I've owned the Canon 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS and find the 70-200/4 IS to be sharper at F4 then either of the F2.8's were at F4.  At 200mm the 70-200/4 IS was considerably better.  Its is amazing too.  Shooting 1/15 @ 200mm is very do-able.  Anything above 1/30th is very sharp (using a 1Ds2).  I used the 70-200/4 IS quite abit during this trip to San Francisco -

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/San_Francisco_001.html

[SLLLL]

SLRgear has just published their test of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=999

"Conclusions
It isn't easy to improve on an almost flawless lens like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, unless you add 4-stop Image Stabilization without degrading any of the optical or build qualities. This lens tests and performs as well, or better than, any lens tested recently. It is quite sharp across its entire aperture-focal length spectrum; chromatic aberration, vignetting, and distortion are all quite reasonable; focusing is fast and accurate; the build is L-class; and the new 4-stop image stabilization is downright startling in its effectiveness. The only downside may be the price, which breaks the kilo-buck barrier and is almost double that of the non-IS version. Despite the hefty price though, we expect a lot of non-IS owners will be selling their lenses to upgrade to the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS -- it's that good. (This might mean that we'll see some of the non-IS models appearing on the used market, which would make that model even more of a bargain.) Very few medicines cure "shaky hands" - this one does, and with fantastic optical quality as well!"

[jpmulligan]

Well, thanks for the feedback and information, everyone! It seems I will be going this route soon, then.