Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM 'L' lens review with samples (full frame and APS-C)

[@lmallard3788]

I appreciate that you include us peasants, with apsc canons, in your lens tests. Now, I am leaning toward the mark 2, with plenty upgrades, easy to see the $200 increase in price.

[@nigelfeatherstone3960]

Drake Leroy I

[@NaeemaIbrahim]

Hahahahaha

[@cooper9917]

SO TRUE! Especially if you have a Canon 7Dmk2, which is priced and compared with full frame cameras quite often.

[@tridinh1011]

@@cooper9917 in some situation, the 7dm2 is better than any fullframe that's not the 1d lineup

[@alaryk3635]

Hahaha, peasants, love it. I have m50 mk2

[@ktor538]

I enjoy watching your reviews, You go straight to the point, no pointless chatter just straight informative reviews! Cheers!

[@AdeptusSkibidicus]

I am 9 years late but thank you for including APS-C in the testing! It’s solidified my decision to buy one now

[@Louis-zk4bq]

What are your thoughts on it ? I’m hesitating between taking this or the EF-S 55-250 for my EOS R50 with an adapter. I’m just a beginner in telephotography

[@questionthis4417]

I recently bought this lens for my canon 50D. It’s a fantastic lens every shot on this old camera looks fresh colourful sharp and always get focus right in auto focus

[@smaakjeks]

I've worked with this lens, and I agree completely. It's simply tack sharp, undistorted and fun to use. It's also a lot lighter and cheaper than the 2.8F version.

[@richardpcrowe]

My favorite lens on either a crop or full frame camera. I use it for all my portraits - humans or my rescue dogs and for at least 1/3 of my travel images... I once owned the non-IS version (before the IS model was introduced). I was a slave to bright light or high ISO but, the IS has freed me from those constraints. I easily shoot 1/3 to 1/2 of my total imagery with this lens... The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens are my two go-to lenses for travel photography. I usually carry a pair of cameras with one lens mounted on each body. Great setup!

[@stephangauthier911]

9 years old video....but I just got an R6 and it made this lens even better! (I have the IS version). Still a ripper and can be had for cheap. Ppl really overpay for their gear.

[@jaelcaballero5212]

I just the R6 and want a lens to get photos of my son at his soccer games. Would you say this would be a great lens for that? I’m thinking of buying one used and have seen some Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS for about $500-600. Thoughts?

[@stephangauthier911]

@@jaelcaballero5212 depends if 200mm is enough reach for you and it also depends on the lighting conditions (f4 vs f2.8 - mk2 is a great value nowadays). Only you know.

[@runwayhub2378]

If you live in wales like I do, then thats particularly useful, as it never stops raining. Yep, thats about right! :p

[@scotie690]

This is one of my best travel lenses. Great optics, light weight and not bulky as the 2.8. I had serious doubts before buying it but I'm totally satisfied with the IQ. Totally agree with you. Thanks so much for the great video reviews!

[@adrotoscroto6501]

You have always been the channel that offers me the best review and brings the best answer to every question I have about a lens I'm about to buy, definitely subscribing and recommending. Thank you

[@MichaelMichael-og6th]

Amazing review Chris 👏👏👏 I bought the "70-200mm f/4 IS USM 'L' after your review and it's totally brilliant/ razor sharp 😍 Keep up the good work mate 👍

[@Alhe867]

You just saved me from sending my lens back when you mentioned the noise at 3:00 - Thanks!!

[@asiboy29]

I sold my 70-200mm f2.8 non IS ang to get this one. The sharpnes is the same and the IS is a big help for me. The f2.8 sometimes gave me some blurred photos @ 200mm and when i zoom in. And so heavy. Thanks for the review

[@ashwinkumar675]

Hi, non-IS would affect only the video right? What would you say about long exposures (if mounted on a tripod anyway)

[@Kalabint]

@@ashwinkumar675 On a Tripod there is no Difference between IS and Non-IS lenses. Reason is that its recommended to switch off the IS on a Tripod to avoid the IS messing up the Pictures.

[@ValiRossi]

This lens would be awesome on an 80D. I might get it.

[@IDIturboDiesel]

ValiRossi I just ordered one on eBay.

[@yichao8939]

i own a 70D, i am thinking about getting it. What is ur opinion on this with a crop sensor like 70D/80D? Is it like what he said--really sharp?

[@IDIturboDiesel]

The benefit of this on a crop camera is the constant aperture but it's not much sharper on a crop camera vs the kit EF-S lens. I got the most qhality out of it when using it with my Canon 6D full frame camera.

[@bobvegana4752]

ValiRossi 80D bro here😂😂 thought the same, might just get this over the non IS version. If you have already bought it, how is your experience with this baby?

[@secretsofuniverse3475]

Hi triy this... amzn.to/2EHlA9E

[@PeterFritzWalter]

Thanks for this wonderful review. Also for telling the truth about the noisiness of image stabilization, which I discovered myself with my Canon 5D and the 100mm fixed lens with powerful image stabilization. But a professional will always use an external mic so there is no problem. It was good you provided a shot to see how when using a tele lens without stabilization and without tripod is not a good way of using the lens. Well, about the prices of Canon lenses, let me say I agree with you that cheap Canon lenses are not worth the money, but the really expensive ones are worth *more* than the money you pay.

[@surfff]

Love your reviews!! I wish there were youtubers who did your style of review but with micro four thirds lenses!! Keep up the great work!

[@aneupan]

Your voice and the background music makes the review a whole lot better. Not that the review itself isn't great.

[@mardukmd919]

great vid. is this lens still a legit purchase in 2022?

[@kaapiosimpanssibonobo1864]

Hey, great review! I'm only a decade late. Anyways, I have a chace to purchase this lens 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!

[@TheGroovesRus]

Great review - well presented and good samples to backup what you are saying. Good job.

[@Robbe902]

I was able to get hold of a version for almost €430 yesterday. I can only confirm what is said in this video. the sharpness is indescribable across all focal lengths and there is definitely still enough light on the sensor, despite F4. I've been photographing with the "big" brother, F2.8, for the last three years. unfortunately this lens did not have a stabilizer, which limits its use to extremely fast shutter speeds or a tripod. I don't even want to talk about the weight saved (F2.8 1400g, F4 720g). The bokeh is (in my opinion) negligibly sharper. I use the lens on a 90D and can only recommend it to anyone who photographs in an actual working range of up to 200m. a word about the stabilizer: it takes about half a second to settle (and is quite loud) but then it's rock solid.

[@Fragenzeichenplatte]

Good review but I think since you're comparing full frame and APS-C you should have mentioned one important difference: The crop factor. If you compare the 70 mm photos for both full frame and APS-C you can see that the full frame camera covers a wider area. See 3:13 with 4:53 in the video. Something to keep in mind if you want to shoot objects that are closer with an APS-C camera.

[@christopherfrost]

I talk about the difference early on in the review.

[@Fragenzeichenplatte]

Oops how did I miss that?

[@Icemane1995]

Would this lens be okay for say sports photography?? I have an 850D. I just want something entry level to see if I like doing it before committing to spending a lot of money.

[@Smauges]

What will the f/4 be If I use it on my Canon 1100D with a 2x TC? Will it be f/8 or with 1.4 f/5.6? Or is it better using a 1.4x TC? I will be photographing butterflies and birds most of the time.. I'm also looking at the 300 mm f/4 L IS USM, but will this be a better buy?

[@christopherfrost]

Smauges For shooting birds and butterflies, you might be better off with the 300mm f/4 lens. Although I'd prefer to have this 70-200 with a 1.4x TC, for the extra versatility (the 1.4x TC will make it f/5.6)

[@averysuarez2622]

Picked this lens up for $250 used a few weeks ago. Mint condition and loving it.

[@TalesOfWar]

This thing has made my short list of "things to potentially get". I'm currently saving for a 6D and would love one of these for it, or I may hold out a little longer and just go all out and get the 2.8 IS MkII. As usual your reviews are fantastic. Keep up the great work! From almost always as rainy Manchester! I think Wales beats us slightly on the "we get more rain" front lol.

[@christopherfrost]

Hehe thanks! I'd actually prefer this lens to the f/2.8 because it's so much smaller and lighter...

[@BBROPHOTO]

I shoot with a 6D and own the f4 version. I primarily shoot with primes as i value the extra light and bokeh for my work a LOT. If you're shooting with flashguns or outside then it's AMAZING inside works just fine, I've used it for events (bands etc in super low light) and because of the 6D's high ISO performance f4 is absolutely fine... BUT, I'm going to be upgrading to the 2.8 IS II because I always want the wider apertures, but seriously though the F4 is a very very good lens and the weight is perfect. The 2.8 models really do get very heavy after a full day of shooting a wedding etc... I used a 5Dmkiii + battery grip and 70-200 2.8 for a bit and trust me, you'll value the weight of the f4 :P

[@ggyanwali]

Hi. At 3:02 you showed that the IS is noisy however I noticed that the lens used was signa and not Canon. Sorry but just noticed it and thought to let you know.

[@zotyar6829]

Dear Christopher would i like to know, in the nearest future would you test the new Canon 70-200 f/4L IS version II, or even the also new 70-200 f/2,8L IS version III? Both are new released lenses since June '18. Thank you for your answer.

[@edwardchao2230]

Hey Chris, great review. Just wondering, would you recommend getting a protective UV filter for these kind of expensive lens, or would a UV filter decrease the image quality? Do you usually use protective UV filters or not? Thanks!

[@theskiboarder1997]

I usually only use UV filters in rain or if it's dusty, sandy, etc. for protection. Otherwise, in my experience at least, the filter does take away slightly from the image quality but it's still 100% usable. TL;DR: Use filters in bad weather

[@nickphipps8904]

Fantastic review as always, i was considering the 85mm 1.8 as a first lens for a dslr, as i would like to start taking portraits and trying to hone in my skills.. In your opinion would the 70-200 f4 be worth the extra versitility while at a loss of low light performance.. would be using outdoors and in a studio enviroment.... many thanks

[@prodigy2k7]

70-200 is GREAT for portraits... Especially in studio environment

[@aravindram871]

Great review Chris. All your lens review are awesome. When can we see the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the "great wall"?

[@MikeDKelley]

Based on your excellent review (as always) and a note written on the Canon site (by a guy who is recommending lenses for the 70D -- he says the 17-55 2.8 is the first lens he would always have, but this one comes in as another essential) I've *almost* decided this will be my second lens. Given that I know you really like the 55-250 variable aperture Canon STM lens, I'm wondering what you would advise to someone like myself who is looking for a really good zoom. The pluses for this lens are the image quality, of course, as well as build and weather proofing. The downside is that it's much heavier and has a smaller range than the 55-250 (and most likely much noisier IS and less smooth AF). The downside to the 55-250 is that it's variable aperture (which is a big minus in my book). If cost were no particular object (since I'm only going to use two or three lenses at most for my 70D work, which will be mostly video although I'll do some still, and I want quality) would you choose this lens over your 55-250? I'm always curious about your thoughts, particularly since you've tested both of these.

[@christopherfrost]

If cost were no object I'd go for the 70-200, but only just, because of the nice build quality and slightly sharper pictures and better contrast. But the two are pretty close - the 55-250 really is a bit more convenient

[@MikeDKelley]

That's really helpful, Chris. I just got all my lenses (and the 70D) in the last two days and just in carrying them all around and using them I've come to rethink (for the umpteenth time) my idea about having the L lens versus something a lot lighter and cheaper. Also, I hadn't realized how excellent the modern cameras are at high ISOs and the ability to use the automatic selection (and then just control the aperture and speed manually) means I can still film at fairly low light levels. But not to belabor this -- when you say "a bit more convenient" you are talking about weight and size, right? Or do you mean the increased focal lengths? I'm just trying to get a very clear picture here before I pop for one or the other (it's particularly sensitive to me right now because the 70-200 comes with a $200 rebate good only through the end of this month, so it's not like I can just take my time and make a more reasoned decision based on my shooting experience).

[@christopherfrost]

Mike Kelley The 55-250 is smaller and lighter and has a much better focal range. I imagine that would be the lens you might prefer, really

[@MikeDKelley]

Thanks again, Chris (do you *ever* sleep? When you get married I can promise you that will change ). I suspect you are right, as the more I play around with what I've got so far (I now have the 17-55 2.8, the 10-18 variable STM and yesterday I couldn't help myself and got the 35mm 2.8) I'm almost second guessing myself even on the 17-55. While I do love it's constant aperture, the size and weight are pretty daunting for an old man like me (and I USED to carry around the full sized 70-200mm 2.8, which I still have but am going to sell). With the 35mm on (which, coincidentally, weighs the same as the 55-250mm we're talking about) it feels just about right, a great camera/lens combination to hold one handed if necessary. With the 17-55, though, I am definitely not shooting one-handed. And, as I said, I'm really impressed with the way the new cameras respond so well in low light even at smaller apertures. Yes, I can't get the blurred backgrounds I might want, but that's why I have the 35mm. So I'm thinking (just thinking, mind you) I *might* return the 17-55 and use my 35mm for those times I need a blurred background and then have lighter STM lenses to carry around. It's just a thought but right now my main concern is the decision between these two I'm talking about, and I so appreciate the thoughtful and reasoned approach you take. If you don't make a living making your video reviews, you should (get that new wife of yours to get on your back -- a good woman can do wonders, as I've found out :>).

[@christopherfrost]

Mike Kelley Thanks! Good luck as you find out what's right for you :-)

[@Happymali10]

I might buy one. Considered the non-L 300mm, but the weather sealing on this one got me. I do a lot of motorsport-photography, and on a dusty rally-stage I want the sealed lens.

[@wannamlwithu]

As always, great review! I already have a 50mm and might add this for video work when i travel to South America next year. Just need to save up a little and maybe upgrade from apsc to full frame 5Dmk3. Thanks Chris!

[@StoyanTanev]

Great review. Is the noise from the IS are the same when taking photos? Thank you!

[@adude394]

Since I'm giving my wife a new bathroom for Christmas, she's giving me this lens. I believe she's going to spend quite a bit less than I am, but no question, we're both going to be happy with our gifts!

[@adonism02]

Hi, should I buy this len used or the tamron 70-210 f/4 brand new? Which one is a better len ?

[@digitalclips]

Hi Chris. What are your thoughts on the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM for wild life? I have a 70D and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM currently and wonder if the L lens would be a significant improvement albeit non-zoom.

[@christopherfrost]

I haven't used that lens yet, apparently it's very nice, though!

[@digitalclips]

I ended up getting the Canon 100-400mm L IS USM.

[@DarrylHughes]

Great review. Any chance of a review of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM?

[@christopherfrost]

Thanks - and that one is on my list :-)

[@edzeterachannel1311]

your site is very helpful.. have you tried reviewing the Sigma 70-200 equivalent (like the HSM Macro 2 or the current Sports version). how does it perform?

[@steveruss84]

I use this lens on my 600D and its totally amazing!! great video!!

[@isktuna7077]

I will ask you somethin, do you think that it is worth the money you spend on it, some people say that it is not worth f4 what do you think?

[@doctorlovera]

HI Geetings from colombia. Great video. 2:57 I see the rubber on our camera is peeling off, How did you fix it?. I have a canon SL1 and it is gaving the same problem. Can i use superglue gel to fix it? Thanks again for the video.

[@christopherfrost]

It's a nightmare. Glue is a temporary solution - but the rubber stretches over time which is the problem. It's a huge issue on my Canon 60D, and it was on my 550D - but oddly I've never had the problem on my Canon 6D, or seen it on Canon's more expensive cameras

[@doctorlovera]

I´ll take my SL1 to the canon center for a new rubber grip. Thaks for the answer and the videos. Great work. Greetings from Bogotá Colombia

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

so glad to hear that it does well on APS-C too. really happy I found it on your profile. wanna check though if you have reviewed the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 can't seem to find reviews at all.

[@christopherfrost]

A review of that lens is coming very soon indeed!

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

Christopher Frost Photography yay!:)

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

:))

[@christopherfrost]

Oh, sorry! Bad news - I thought you meant the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. A review of THAT lens is coming soon. A review of the 50-150 is...not. Sorry. It's discontinued now anyway, I think, and Sigma never made many of those.

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

Christopher Frost Photography oh all right. no problem. :) I look forward to the 1.8 review.

[@WattoPhotos]

Would this be a good replacement for a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

[@TheKwadwo14]

Interested in this answer.

[@MichaelNNguyen]

Oldie but a goodie, still mine, very light and powerful. Using along with my 5D Mark III.

[@AJGaleckiFilms]

Your reviews are my favorite on KZbin chris. Looking forward to getting this lens when my lens piggy bank fills up again (just dropped $799 on the Sigma 18-35).

[@CSXFan2013]

Question Chris. I've been looking to upgrade my tele lens from the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III lens that came bundled with my Canon T5 to the 70-200mm. would the 70-200 be a good replacement for my old 75-300mm?

[@LittleMo-wt3gj]

thanks for another great review Chris how does this lens with a 1.4 extender compare to the canon 70-300 L lens ?? be awesome if you did a review on that lens too

[@ashwinkumar675]

Great Video. Looking to get this (2018-2019) - non-IS would affect only the video right? What would you say about long exposures (if mounted on a tripod anyway)?

[@christopherfrost]

Image stabilization also helps you to get sharper images when you're doing stills photography handheld

[@ashwinkumar675]

@@christopherfrost great thanks!

[@pratikray6500]

I am looking to buy one out of the 3 telephoto: 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L IS and the 70-300 f/4-5.6L. Cost is a factor, but I could just about stretch my budget to get any of these three. Which one do you recommend? I primarily shoot landscapes [mountains] in sunrises/sunset, mostly on a tripod stopping the lens down to f/5.6-f/11 range.

[@christopherfrost]

You'll want the 70-300 then :-) an alternative is to wait and see how Canon's new 70-300 works. It could be pretty much as good as the 'L' lens

[@pratikray6500]

Thanks. I guess I will wait for the new one. I wish they bring out a new 70-300 L and swap the focusing ring and zoom positions.

[@SoyMiguelDuarte]

Have you ever experimented a slipping focus problem? I have seen a few videos about that issue when trying to adjust the focus (focus ring) with the lens in vertical position. (I hope you understand my bad english haha)

[@christopherfrost]

Hmm, I don't remember anything happening like that

[@SoyMiguelDuarte]

+Christopher Frost Photography Have you seen those videos I mentioned? I want a telephoto lens and I'm thinking about gettin this or the 55-250 stm. (For a Canon 80D) Btw, Great videos dude and thank you for answering.

[@christopherfrost]

I haven't really heard of that problem before. Oddly enough, both this and the 55-250 STM have very similar picture quality on an APS-C camera. The 70-200 will have a slight image quality advantage but the 55-250 has a far better zoom range, smaller size, and its far cheaper of course

[@SoyMiguelDuarte]

+Christopher Frost Photography Constant F4 doesn't represent a big advantage?

[@christopherfrost]

It's a nice advantage - but not a huge one.

[@davemiles1409]

had one then bought a 2.8 version , big mistake got on my nerves carrying it around so went back to the F4 that I find is just as good as the 2.8 version. thanks for the review note you are from Cardiff like myself.

[@Polum2]

As is the Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. For those of us on even tighter budgets. another deeply underrated lens, will you do a review on this one Chris?

[@AshBashVids]

I used to have this lens, and it was brilliant. May buy it again one day.

[@zvojurini]

Hi. Thank you for your review. I have a dilemma between Canon 70-200 F2.8 nonIS and F4 IS. Advantage of F4 is stabilization which is very usefull, but F2.8 has larger aperture which is better for low light and moving subjects. Which lens is better overall in low light? Tnx for the answer.

[@christopherfrost]

+tusho Personally I think the IS would help you more. Also an f/4 zoom lens is far smaller and lighter to carry around which is a huge advantage

[@Showsable]

Outstanding review!

[@samwisegrangee]

Would you take this over a Tamron 70-200 2.8 (or the Sigma for the matter)? Both are around the same price on eBay and I'm thinking that the f/4's L glass would be better than having the f/2.8's extra f-stop. Thoughts, Chris?

[@christopherfrost]

+Samuel Granger When you stop the Tamron lens down to f/4 I'm sure the picture quality would be about the same. I'd be tempted by the extra f/stop of the Tamron lens, but also be tempted by the far greater portability of the Canon, so really it's swings and roundabouts

[@princejmy]

Hi. Should i get this one or the Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 L lens with 1.4x extender At the moment I'm leaning towards the 70-300 because of wildlife photography Thanks in advance

[@zotyar6829]

Dear Christopher, could you help me please in deciding between this Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM vs. Sigma 50-100 f1,8 DC HSM on a Canon 80D, crop sensor camera. Which one would you buy for yourself between this two lenses? Thank you.

[@christopherfrost]

They're quite different by virtue of their respective maximum apertures. If you want zoom range, go for the 70-200. If you want a wide aperture, go for the Sigma lens

[@nolanspeller283]

Hey Chris, just thought I would ask you a question. I'm currently in the process of some big adjustments to my kit. I'm upgrading to a 6D. And along with that, I have some questions about the 70-200 f4L is. I currently own the 70-200 f2.8 NON IS from 1999. This lens has worked great for me with my 7D and is super tack sharp. I want to know if you think the F4 IS version would be worth the upgrade. Is it as sharp and the 2.8? How big of a benefit do you think IS will give me? Which lens would you choose? Thanks

[@christopherfrost]

Nolan Speller I would just keep the f/2.8 version unless you need IS and smaller size

[@nolanspeller283]

Why are you recommending to keep the 2.8? Is it optically superior?

[@christopherfrost]

Nolan Speller Stopped down to f/4 it's about the same. It's just nicer to have f/2.8 than f/4 - more light coming in, more out of focus backgrounds

[@nolanspeller283]

great thanks, I think that I can get around the fact that there's no IS. I just thought it would be nice to have the smaller and lighter size. I don't do a lot of portraiture, mostly landscape and nature photography.

[@christopherfrost]

Nolan Speller I'd say it's probably worth getting the f/4 IS version then. But, it's up to you!

[@sahasra8173]

Did you review 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS? Can you share the link?

[@christopherfrost]

Nah. I don't plan to. Basically it's a perfect lens.

[@Jumpeex]

Christopher Frost Photography Best answer 😆

[@ShubhDasgupta]

Awesome Video as usual! I am a proud subscriber Christopher. Will this work with Canon 1100D?

[@christopherfrost]

+Shubh Dasgupta It sure will :-) all Canon mount lenses made since 1987 will work on your Canon APS-C digital SLR camera, except EF-M lenses

[@dciccoritti]

Hi Chris. Enjoy all your videos. You have the greatest voice on KZbin. I'm looking at this lens for sports photography, namely photographing my kids baseball games. Just wondering if this would be good for video also. I'm debating whether I should get the IS and do both photography and video or get the non IS for photography and the new Canon 55-200mm STM for video. Is turning on image stabilization when mounted on a tripod ok with either lens? I've heard both yes and no. You're thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks :-)

[@christopherfrost]

+Davide Ciccoritti I'd be tempted by getting the non-IS version and the new 55-250 STM, as the 55-250 STM is nicely optimized for video in all kinds of ways. All the best

[@k1111117]

How are the optics and bokeh compared to the older 70-200 IS 2.8? The used 70-200 IS 2.8 can be had for the price of the F4 new Thanks!

[@christopherfrost]

I haven't used that lens before - it's meant to be good, but not the sharpest at f/2.8

[@OneHappyShooter]

Would its weather sealing make it a better choice over the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 OS HSM? Thank you. I think you're doing a great job, BTW. Keep it up.

[@christopherfrost]

It's a string to the Canon lens's bow. The main difference is that the Canon lens is noticably sharper (although of course, the Sigma lens lets in twice as much light)

[@nrgspike]

I've always wondered if there was something wrong with my lens as the IS sounds like gravel in a coffee grinder - but thanks to this video, I now know that that's just how Canon engineered it apparently. I really do love this lens though. And agreed, twice the weight and twice price for the 2.8 version, just for 1-stop and negligably creamier bokeh - uhm, no ta!

[@dar00dsandstrooom3]

Hey Chris, can you do a comparison between the canon 70-200mm f2.8. And the tamron version? Btw nice videos! You've helped me a lot in my lens selections :)

[@NSM_Siblings]

70-200 is vs non is ? Does IS make a huge difference for stills in good light? I can get a non IS version for almost half the price.

[@eliasali9383]

+Sandeep Padmanabhan in good light there is no difference because you don't need the IS, get the 70-200 f4 , 2.8

[@selimthedream]

+Sandeep Padmanabhan Most reviews and samples show the IS version is also better in image quality in addition to the help of IS.

[@Zwiesel66]

+Sandeep Padmanabhan Wrong question ;-) The non-IS lens is older got a different build and the image quality is not as good as the IS version. I would always buy the IS version no matter if f/4 or f/2.8 - you will be thankful if you have to take photos in low light.

[@prodigy2k7]

Save up and get the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM II You will eventually upgrade IMO... I had the 2.8 non-IS and it was great but i wanted all the features and MK II quality etc....

[@sahasra8173]

I tried non IS for some time. But not happy with my bit shaky hands as images were blur in low light. I got F4 IS and I was happy. But finally settled with 2.8 IS II.

[@xlvi1168]

Hi your videos are great I was wondering if the image stabilisation only applies to video mode or will it help with keeping the camera still whilst taking photos?

[@christopherfrost]

+MR RLK It works for stills or video, like all image stabilization systems :-)

[@xlvi1168]

+Christopher Frost Photography Ok thanks I am about to buy a 700d and i am torn between the Ef-s 18-200 and the 55-250 which you both reviewed. Which would you recommend bearing in mind i will use for motor sport and countryside, The 70-200 is excellent but quite expensive. Many thanks : )

[@christopherfrost]

+MR RLK Get the 55-250 STM, so long as you have a wide angle lens to go with it

[@xlvi1168]

+Christopher Frost Photography Ok thanks for the info.

[@mantferv]

Hi thanks for the video, im about to choose to buy the 70-200f/4 usm l (no image stabilizer) do you think would be fine for my portraits (studio/outdoor) portraits purpose? thanks

[@TalesOfWar]

If you're doing video or shooting stuff that moves, go with IS. If you're shooting stuff mostly on a tripod of things that aren't moving then the regular version should be fine. Something to note though, this is optically better than the non IS version. It's sharper with better colour reproduction etc. It's hard to notice unless viewed side by side and both lenses take incredible images, but it's something to be aware of. I'd suggest you hire both of them out for a day or two and see how they perform for you. Much cheaper than buying one then deciding you should have gone with the other lol.

[@francisjunto]

have you try adding a 2x or 1.4 extender to this lens? im using 70-200f4 non IS version,, im thinking of buying an extender.. :) thank you..

[@BluNoodles-ic5fi]

Thank u for the noise at 3:00. I was worried mine was bad or something

[@YassineSABRI00]

LOL I said the same when I heard it, I thought mine is exaggerating LOL

[@gunnarjensen5910]

Using higher ISO makes the camera more responsive in video-mode ?? Or better to use manual focus or the AF-ON button ??

[@acevideo1]

I know this is a very good lens. Just wonder - it's a 2006 lens (the non IS came out in 1999). So do you think they'll be coming out with a replacement anytime soon as it's been a while? I'm debating on weather or not to wait.

[@christopherfrost]

Almost certainly not. It's still a very sharp lens

[@acevideo1]

Christopher, you might well be right. I was only wondering because the 24-105L got replaced after 10 years, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean the 70-200L will. If and when they eventually do, I'm guessing it'll only be the IS version that we see a new model of.

[@killjoyshidae1208]

Do you by any chance have access to the legendary "Magic Drainpipe" 80-200 f2.8? If so, or when you can, maybe make a review of it? :)

[@christopherfrost]

I'd like to...maybe one day :-)

[@samirpoudel3535]

which model of canon dslr did you use for this video. i am planning to get this lens to use for 750d. can i get the same image quality? and another question: were those pictures edited(brightness/ contrast/ colour combinations etc )? or just the original ones?

[@christopherfrost]

Check description

[@TheCicada007]

I use a 80D and planning to get a L series lens. I am confused in between 24-105 IS II and 70-200 IS I . I also have a 10-18 to cover the wide angle landscapes. I mostly do travel and street photography. However, I can only get either 24-105 or 70-200. Any suggestions mate?

[@christopherfrost]

Personally I'd go for the 24-105

[@neiltudor8625]

hi Christopher I purchased the ef 70-200mm is usm lens today, to use on my 6d, your right the noise is quite loud in is mode.is it normal, and does the outside mike make a lot of difference on the play back video. can you still hear the motor noise. thank you

[@christopherfrost]

An outside mic will still pick up some noise I'm afraid, unless it's far away from the caemera

[@Unplugged704]

Will this fit my Canon T3i? And is IS really necessary for the casual weekend shooter for family and kids sports photos?

[@christopherfrost]

Any Canon mount lens made since 1987 will work on your APS-C camera. Yes, IS can be useful

[@perry1997]

Thanks for the video, I have an Canon 30D, Would I be better off upgrading my camera with an average lens or get one of these lenes? Thanks for any help.

[@christopherfrost]

Hmm, tricky question. I'd be tempted to get a new camera as the high ISO image quality of the 30D must be pretty awful

[@perry1997]

I ended up ordering a Canon 70D, can't wait to try it out.

[@rmanuelb]

Hi, are you aware of any Auto-focus / Focus problems with this lens? I saw some discussions about it on the web, just can't understand if it's random or a problem with this model. Regards and Thank you.

[@Diostillrocks]

You will find people complaining about the AF performance on all AF lenses.

[@ah1403abyadh]

which one would you choose in terms of pictures quality... sigma 70-200 F2.8 os tamron 70-200 F2.8 vc canon 70-200 F4 is the price of all about the same. thanks 👋.

[@christopherfrost]

+Ahmad Alabyadh I'd probably go for the Tamron. It will be virtually as sharp as the Canon when stopped down to f/4

[@bradleykercheval4374]

Just noticed that when you show the noisy auto-focus, you actually show a Sigma lens. How loud is the AF on the 70 - 200 that you're reviewing?

[@christopherfrost]

That's not the autofocus - that's the image stabilization, which I had turned 'on' to shoot that video

[@xeweezyx15]

I see a few filmmakers who use it in fast action sports like skateboarding. I am currently deciding on whether to get the non IS for $500 or just get the IS version for $300-$400 more. Any suggestions?

[@christopherfrost]

+Eric Elizalde If it's for sports, you won't really need the IS as you'll be using fast shutter speeds anyway :-)

[@darrensmith7949]

Hi quite an old topic, but hopefully still active. I am considering buying this version 2nd hand to go with an Eos R, for an upcoming trip to South Africa. I have a tamron 35-150 osd, and tamron 100-400mm. Can anybody say if this lens give faster autofocus along with any iq improvement over above lenses or would it just stay in the bag?

[@nicaheat]

Do you think this will work well on Canon M50? I would not use it to do video as I am not interested in video but for wild life photography.

[@pgm_2576]

Can you also do a review for canon 70-300 IS USM lens? To differentiate them, they seems like the same with their qualities tho

[@robinrides2384]

Would this still be a viable lens in 2021? Budget wise I found a pretty good deal second hand.

[@christopherfrost]

It's still pretty good although the newer version is a bit nicer

[@emergecreative_]

Im confused/ when you mention noise feedback from the image stabilization you showed a sigma lens? Wondering if the noise is actually from sigma or if you used wrong footage. Haha just hoping I can purchase the canon lens and not have that issue

[@cayden7725]

Just bought this lens used, yes I know the mark 2 is out, but this is enough for me :) I'm loving it, but the autofocus is a bit slow. (maybe because mine is old) edit: forgot to mention, I got it ridiculously cheap from a family friend for $450 SGD.

[@someguy_]

hey is this lens still good at this time? i can get it right now for about 400$ but im not sure if there are better options

[@travelanddrones]

Hi Christopher, very good video. Could you make one with sport videos and photos using this same lens? I'm planning to get this one to be used in amateur and /or school / university soccer photos.. Thks

[@christopherfrost]

I don't have this lens anymore, and I don't really do sports photography

[@russellvernon4214]

Would you recommend this but non is and eos 700d or the eos 70d and save up to get this but non is later ? i currently have an eos I000d and i feel like i need to upgrade any help would be great. thanks in advance

[@v-22]

Well done, I love your high standards.

[@khoinguyen5063]

Chris please help me. I'm trying to buy my first tele and L lens and i don't know if IS is worth the extra money. I mostly shoot outdoors. Should i get this or the non is version?

[@christopherfrost]

+TheBeatlesVietsub If you're shooting outdoors the non-IS version should be fine

[@DalsPhotography]

+TheBeatlesVietsub Well, I guess it also depends on your subjects? I shoot birds always hand held, and I love the IS versions of canon lenses :)

[@samhipps8435]

On an crop sensor camera would you recommend using an 85mm 1.8 or this lens for sports photography?

[@christopherfrost]

+Sam Hipps Hmm...I'd love to say the 85mm lens but I'd probably need the flexiblity of the 70-200

[@samhipps8435]

ok thank you!

[@desiredheat4421]

Hey Chris, have you tested this lens with a converter?

[@papijelly]

Is it still worth it to buy this lens the IS version f4 for about 500$ ? I know the mark2 is about 900-1000 . Used ofcouse

[@iRecordOS]

Hey Chris I noticed you’ve never done the original 2.8 is L. At 900 dollars I think it’s a bargain in 2021. It’s quite heavy but it’s also parafocal.

[@gurudeclan]

How does it perform in low light? Thanks for another great video

[@christopherfrost]

Well it has a maximum aperture of f/4, so only okay

[@ktor538]

I'd like to see a review on the others in class 70-200mm. Like Canon 2.8 If you get a chance to shoot with that lens.