As most of you know, I shoot regularly with Canon’s EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens and have always found it to be an incredibly sharp and versatile little lens. Sometimes however, you just need a little more “reach” than this lens provides so I turn to another of my all-time favorite telephoto zooms, the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM and it’s younger brother the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
I’ve always loved Canon’s telephoto zoom lenses in the “70-200mm” range and shot extensively with an old FD 70-210mm on my F-1N body in the days before digital. The EF 70-200mm lenses are both extremely sharp throughout their zoom range as you can see below in the MTF charts. I’d love to shoot the f/2.8L version of this lens but the price, size and weight convinced me to stick with the f/4 version. I also settled on the newer, image stabilized lens so I could use it for landscape and commercial (hand-held) work.
I’ve got to say that this is one impressive lens. The size and weight are just about perfect for my 5D2 body and using the “Tripod Mounting Ring A II” the combination balances effortlessly on my Gitzo tripod. This is probably the sharpest Canon zoom I’ve ever shot with and the extra “reach” really helps cover those shots I was missing before.
Lower McKinney Falls – Austin, Texas
Copyright © 2009 Jeff Lynch Photography
Shot taken with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II set on manual (M) using an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens tripod-mounted. The exposure was taken at 85mm, f/20 for 0.4 seconds at ISO 100. All post capture processing was done in Adobe’s Lightroom 3.
Click on the image above for a larger version.
No lens is perfect but this little beauty is close. My only gripes are that the image stabilization system is somewhat loud compared to my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and my EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lenses and that the ET-74 lens hood is very narrow and deep. This makes adjusting a CP filter a bit of a pain when shooting.
And finally, the price difference between the “IS” version and “non-IS” version is just plain wrong ($1135 versus $589). The two lenses are optically very similar and I just can’t imagine that adding image stabilization could double the price. I suspect that Canon has been selling the “non-IS” version at too low a price for many years now and is trying to make up some of the profit on the “IS” version.
Other than that, Canon’s EF 70-200mm f4L lenses are absolutely superb in terms of sharpness, size/weight and value (especially the non-IS version at less than $600 USD) and I highly recommend either of these two lenses for landscape, portrait or commercial photography. You won’t be disappointed.
Texas Landscape Photography 
Hi Jeff,
I’m also using the same 24-105L lens mounted on my 5DM2. It is not as sharp as I expected or as shown in your work. Could there be some adjustments that I should do?
I meant 24 -105mm (fat fingers again)!!!
I agree with you that this is one great lens. I opted for the f2.8 version, however, because I do quite a lot of indoor shoots, including concerts etc., so I bit the cost bullet and don’t regret it – except when I am carrying it about outdoors, when the lighter f4 would be preferable. But you can’t win them all! (My general purpose lens is also the 24-205L and I agree with allthe good things you say about it).
If you are on a tripod, turn the stabilization off anyway! You dont need it and it will only monkey with you! Trust me on this one.
Indeed! Nice write up. I rented a 70-200 2.8/f to shoot a concert with and good God is that thing heavy. I much rather prefer my 70-200 4/f!
I used an EOS 7D and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM with a 1.4x converter to take the picture at
I’ve never seen McKinney Falls look as smooth as it does in your pretty photo.