Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM Review

Zoom lenses with f/2.8 apertures get more attention than their f/4 counterparts.

But if you're not a pro photographer, a telezoom that captures less light is a good way to save money and keep the weight of your camera bag down.

Canon recently updated both of its premium 70-200mm lenses, and while the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L III IS USM ($2,099) has a few minor changes, its f/4 sibling is entirely new.

We tested the $1,299 EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM and found it to be an excellent performer, and good enough to be called our Editors' Choice.

Honest, Objective Reviews

Daxdi.com is a leading authority on technology, delivering Labs-based, independent reviews of the latest products and services.

Our expert industry analysis and practical solutions help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.

Design: Iconic L Series Looks

The EF 70-200mm isn't the most expensive telezoom that Canon sells, but it has all the looks of other premium L-series telephotos.

It's housed in a metal barrel, with a light gray finish, and a red ring at the front of the barrel.

It measures 6.9 by 3.2 inches (HD), weighs 1.7 pounds, and supports 72mm front filters.

It's an internal zoom design, so it doesn't extend when changing the focal length.

It's not the smallest lens in the world, but it's light compared with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8LIS III USM, which comes in at 7.8 by 3.5 inches and weighs 3.3 pounds.

As with other L lenses, the 70-200mm is protected from dust and splashes, so you can use it outdoors in rough weather when paired with one of Canon's pro-grade cameras.

The exposed surfaces of the front and rear elements are coated with fluorine, a material that repels moisture and grease, which makes it easier to keep the lens free of smudges.

There's an indentation on the barrel for a tripod collar, but it's not included.

If you want to add one it'll cost you an extra $210 for the Tripod Mount Ring AII(WII).

But you do get a reversible lens hood and a soft carrying case with the lens.

As far as compatibility goes, as an EF lens it can be used with both full-frame or APS-C Canon SLRs, or with Canon EOS M mirrorless cameras using an adapter.

The manual focus ring sits at the front of the barrel.

It's covered in textured rubber so it's comfortable to grip and turn.

It's complemented with the zoom ring, positioned toward the center, which has markings at 70, 100, 135, and 200mm positions.

The arrangement is standard for Canon lenses, and may be enough to justify the extra cost over the Tamron 70-210mm, which not only swaps the position on the rings, but also has a zoom ring that turns in the opposite direction as the Canon lens.

If you have years of muscle memory with Canon lenses, the Tamron's design may throw off your game.

There are four toggle switches at the left side of the barrel, between the two control rings, each adjusting a different aspect of the lens' functions.

They start with the focus limiter at the top, which can be set to let autofocus roam over the full range, or limit focus to subjects more than three meters away from the camera, in order to speed acquisition of distant targets.

Below it is the AF/MF switch, used to switch the between manual and autofocus.

The remaining switches adjust the image stabilization system.

You can turn the stabilizer on or off completely, and when it's on set its operation mode.

There are three settings—use Mode 1 for most shots, Mode 2 for panning along with a subject moving horizontally, or Mode 3 for moving the camera to track an erratically moving subject.

In testing I found the stabilization to be effective to five stops, netting consistently crisp handheld results at 1/6-second.

That's better than the Tamron 70-210mm, which delivered three stops of correction, only keeping images crisp at shutter speeds 1/30-second or shorter.

Close focus is available to 3.3 feet (1 meter).

When focused as close as possible and set to the 200mm position, the lens projects subjects onto the sensor at 1:3.7 life-size.

It's not quite macro territory—we want to see at least 1:3 to call a zoom lens a macro—but it does allow you to lock onto smaller subjects.

The Tamron is slightly better in this regard, delivering 1:3 macro capability at its longest zoom and minimum focus distance.

Image Quality: Loads of Detail, But Not Perfect

I tested the 70-200mm with the 50MP full-frame EOS 5DS R.

At 70mm f/4 it puts up outstanding resolution, 4,433 lines, much better than the 2,750 lines we want to see at a minimum.

Resolution holds steady at f/5.6, and we see a slight drop, to 4,024 lines, at f/8.

Edge performance hovers around 3,800 lines, an excellent result, through f/8, and while it's not as impressive as the center, it's nothing to sneeze at.

Compare that with the Tamron 70-210mm, also tested with the 5DS R, which nets 3,652 lines at f/4 and 3,884 lines at f/8—strong numbers, but not as strong as the Canon.

See How We Test Digital Cameras

The Canon's resolution drops as you move to apertures smaller than f/8.

At f/11 we see 3,673 lines, and image quality takes a more extreme downward turn at f/16 (3,222 lines) and f/22 (2,435 lines).

At the 135mm position, the Canon lens puts up a little less resolution, but even the 4,108-line score at f/4 is excellent.

Resolution doesn't change that much at f/5.6 (4,168 lines) and f/8 (4,020 lines), and the edges are not significantly less in quality when compared with the rest of frame—they show 3,747 lines at f/4, 3,906 lines at f/5.6, and 3,938 lines at f/8.

At its peak, f/5.6, the Tamron lens puts up a little more resolution at 135mm (4,260 lines), but its edges are not as sharp as the Canon, topping out at 3,158 lines.

As with 70mm, try to avoid using the EF 70-200mm at narrow apertures at 135mm.

Resolution drops to 3,733 lines at f/11, 3,207 lines at f/16, and 2,442 lines at f/22.

This is due to diffraction—light scatters as it passes through the closed-down iris, detracting from image detail.

Image quality remains strong at 200mm.

We see 3,768 lines at f/4, with edge performance that's just as good as in the center.

Results are about the same at f/5.6, and there's a slight uptick at f/8, to 3,870 lines.

Image quality holds up at f/11 (3,611 lines), but diffraction cuts into resolution at f/16 (3,112 lines) and f/22 (2,356 lines).

This is where the EF 70-200mm really separates itself from the Tamron 70-210mm.

The budget-friendly Tamron is still good at 210mm, but not as good as the Canon, notching 3,160 lines at f/4 and 3,499 lines at f/8.

As sharp as it is, the Canon lens does show some distortion.

There's a modest (1.3 percent) level of barrel distortion at 70mm, drawing straight lines with a very slight outward curve.

It's a subtle effect that you won't notice in most images.

It gives way to a more noticeable inward curve, pincushion distortion, at 135mm (1.5 percent) and 200mm (1.9 percent).

You're more likely to notice the pincushion effect, especially in architectural images.

Thankfully you can correct for it easily—in-camera distortion compensation is available when shooting JPGs, and if you shoot in Raw format you can apply a lens profile in Adobe Lightroom to straighten the lines in your shots.

The vignette drawn around the corners of the frame when shooting at wide apertures is also something you can compensate for in-camera when capturing JPGs.

But when shooting in Raw format, or with Peripheral Illumination Correction turned off in your camera, you do get a bit of dimness at the corners.

There's a -1.9EV drop at 70mm f/4, and a -2.5EV drop at 135mm and 200mm f/4.

Stopping down to f/5.6 all but eliminates the vignette, but if you want to get perfectly even illumination from corner to center (in scenes where the light is that consistent), you can get there with the same Lightroom Lens Profile used for distortion correction, or via manual slider adjustment in Lightroom's Develop screen.

A Fine Zoom for the Right Photographer

There's no question that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is a strong performer.

It's very sharp, even when paired with Canon's highest resolution SLR, and gets there without weighing you down too much.

It's not a lens for pros working paid gigs—they'll want an f/2.8 zoom, and there aren't many that are better than Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8.

But for enthusiasts in search of a lightweight, high-quality telezoom it's a strong alternative.

It won't excel in the dim light in which f/2.8 zooms come in handy, but even though only half the light is gathered at f/4, it's a fine choice for outdoor photography.

We're making the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM an Editors' Choice, as its performance is unquestioned and it certainly has an appeal for photographers shopping for a telezoom, but whose needs don't necessitate the cost or bulk of an f/2.8 lens.

We also made the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD an Editors' Choice when we reviewed it last month.

It's not as good as the Canon lens, but it's $500 less expensive.

That's a big difference for a lot of people.

We think there's room for both in the market.

Get the Tamron if you're on a budget and don't mind that its resolution isn't as high as the Canon and its stabilization system isn't as effective or as versatile.