Comparing the specifications of three iterations of the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 lens
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
- Release Date September 1999
- Image Stabilization (IS) None
- Optical Construction 16 elements in 13 groups
- Minimum Focusing Distance 1.2 meters
- Maximum Magnification 0.21x
- Aperture Blades 8
- Filter Diameter 67mm
- Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
- Weight 705g
- Additional Features Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for autofocus; no weather sealing.
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- Release date November 2006
- Image stabilisation up to 4 stops
- Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups
- Minimum focusing distance 1.2 meters
- Maximum magnification 0.21x
- Aperture blades 8
- Filter diameter 67mm
- Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
- Weight 760g
- Ring-type USM for autofocus
- Weather-sealed construction.
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM
- Release date June 2018
- Image stabilization up to 5 stops
- Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups, including 1 fluorite and 2 UD elements
- Minimum focusing distance 1.0 meter
- Maximum magnification 0.27x
- Aperture blades 9
- Filter diameter 72mm
- Dimensions (diameter x length) 80mm x 176mm
- Weight 780g
- Enhanced weather sealing
- Improved autofocus with a new CPU
- Fluorine coatings on front and rear elements
So if we are looking at just the second two iterations, then how much better is the latest version compared to the previous version?
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM has a 5-stop Image stabiliser with three modes: a mode for general stabilisation for still subjects; a mode for panning; and a mode that activates stabilisation only during the shot. The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has a 3-stop image stabiliser with two modes: one for general stabilisation and one for panning.
If I am looking at the lens for use on a Canon EOS R6 or any of the R cameras with in-body image stabilisation, it is on all the time in the camera, so whether it is on on the lens only during the shot seems a redundant consideration.
So then the question is only whether the Mk II lens has better autofocus. How to find out? If it is better, how much better? From reading several reviews I think the difference is not that great.
To get back to the camera I would be using, the obvious question is why not go for the RF mount version. It weighs 695g, so that isn’t enough to sway me one way or the other.
It comes down to money. The Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is £1,600 new.
A new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is about the same price. but a second hand lens from a reputable dealer sells for about £650.
It’s even more dramatic with the earlier EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. It is only available used because it is no longer made, and from a reputable dealer it is about £375.
Of course I would have to buy an EF to RF adapter, which are £119 new at the moment., so add that to the cost.
But if I opt for the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM then I am looking at no more than £500 overall compared to £1,600 for the RF lens – a third of the cost.
If I was buying a workhorse lens and I knew I would be using it for a long time, then maybe I would go for the RF lens. But for an experiment in working with a long lens on full frame it’s a good option.
Alternatives
To muddy the water, Ken Rockwell thinks the Canon 70-300mm IS II is a better lens because it focuses faster (actually instantly), zooms 50% longer and only costs half as much. The 70-300 is also a little lighter and a little shorter.
Ot I could call it a day with Canon and buy a Nikon.