Seeking feedback on the Canon EF 70-200 L F4 Mk II

[Tronhard]

I am considering this lens but would be interested in the experience of anyone who has used one so far as to its performance - strengths and weaknesses - including anyone using it with the teleconverter MkIII x 2 or x 1.4.

[ebiggs1]

I have not the experience with the Mk II version but I owned two of the first version for years. Both were nice lenses. No issues.  They were mostly used by my second shooters as I used the f2.8 version.  Both the first and now the MK II.  Don't have the Mk III yet.

You didn't ask but, IMHO, the duo EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens are the best lenses made. 

[kvbarkley]

The lens rentals blog has a couple of recent teardowns.

[Tronhard]

First of all thanks to both of you for your responses.

I actually have the 70-200 2.8 MkII - I see no point in upgrading to the Mk III, but I am interesed in the 70-200 F4 II because of its much lighter weight for those occasions when I will be carrying a lens for a very long time - such as on hikes.

I will look to see if I can find the tear-down referred to, but I suspect that being an L lens it is robustly built!  I am curious if it is a decent upgrade from the MkI verion in terms of image quality.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Tronhard wrote:

First of all thanks to both of you for your responses.

I actually have the 70-200 2.8 MkII - I see no point in upgrading to the Mk III, but I am interesed in the 70-200 F4 II because of its much lighter weight for those occasions when I will be carrying a lens for a very long time - such as on hikes.

I will look to see if I can find the tear-down referred to, but I suspect that being an L lens it is robustly built!  I am curious if it is a decent upgrade from the MkI verion in terms of image quality.

---

I try to hike in the woods, back pain permitting.  I use the top of the line Lowepro TopLoader holster.  It can hold a pro-grade body with a EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM still attached.  The holsters coming in varying lens depths, and varying body widths.

I love mine, because it is REALLY well padded.  It has a shoulder and a waist strap.  It is comfortable to wear.  My hands are free.   The waist strap prevents it from swinging around and bumping into stuff.

BTW.  Don’t you mean The IS version of the 70-200 f/4L?  

[Tronhard]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@Tronhard wrote:

First of all thanks to both of you for your responses.

I actually have the 70-200 2.8 MkII - I see no point in upgrading to the Mk III, but I am interesed in the 70-200 F4 II because of its much lighter weight for those occasions when I will be carrying a lens for a very long time - such as on hikes.

I will look to see if I can find the tear-down referred to, but I suspect that being an L lens it is robustly built!  I am curious if it is a decent upgrade from the MkI verion in terms of image quality.

---

I try to hike in the woods, back pain permitting.  I use the top of the line Lowepro TopLoader holster.  It can hold a pro-grade body with a EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM still attached.  The holsters coming in varying lens depths, and varying body widths.

I love mine, because it is REALLY well padded.  It has a shoulder and a waist strap.  It is comfortable to wear.  My hands are free.   The waist strap prevents it from swinging around and bumping into stuff.

BTW.  Don’t you mean The IS version of the 70-200 f/4L?  

---

Yes, I use both Lowe Pro and Think Tank holsters (I often carry a battery grip for balance and the capacity and the Think Tank holsters accommodate the extra bulk and there is a waist belt to take the load off my shoulder), both brands are excellent units.   I do multi-day hikes, so I am also carrying a pack of around 20kg (45lb), so as with all things I am seeking to keep the weight down as much as possible.

You are right, I was being a bit lazy i must admit.  I would only get the IS versions of these telephoto lenses.  The 70-200 IS MkII is a bit of a monster that way in terms of weight

[ebiggs1]

"... I am interesed in the 70-200 F4 II because of its much lighter weight..."

A little over 1 pound?  I like the f4 as I said it made me a lot of money but I wouldn't give up the f2.8 for a little over a pound.

[Tronhard]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... I am interesed in the 70-200 F4 II because of its much lighter weight..."

A little over 1 pound?  I like the f4 as I said it made me a lot of money but I wouldn't give up the f2.8 for a little over a pound.

---

I am certainly NOT giving up the f2.8, that's a keeper,  but I have a few dollars to splurge on a lens and its lighter weight might enable me to carry it on longer forays.

[ebiggs1]

"I have a few dollars to splurge on a lens..."

I am all in for that!    Like I said it is a good lens. Mine were.  I can't see you not liking it. I just prefer the f2.8.