On the verge of buying a Canon 70-200 F/4

[ShutterbugJohan]

My problem with the 70-200 f4 is that it really gets better at 5.6 or 8

Could your camera/lens combo need calibration? Most people find the 70-200/4L to be very sharp wide open.

[pvs742009]

Maybe. I do find manual focus working better than auto focus, which is true with most lenses I have. But the bigger problem is the bokeh. I find my sigma 105mm f2.8 ultra sharp at 5.6 plus and with good bokeh but the 70-200 disappoints me

[Daniel Browning]

If portraits is what you will mainly shoot with this lens then consider the 85mm 1.8 (much cheaper but ultra sharp and much wider aperture for great Bokeh) and also the 135mm f2 L (again wider aperture and very sharp even at f2).

Good suggestions.

My problem with the 70-200 f4 is that it really gets better at 5.6 or 8 and by then the Bokeh is not great.

I kindly disagree. It is very sharp wide open:


f/4 vs f/8 at 70mm


It cleans up a bit with stopping down, but it's plenty sharp for portraits. And at 200mm the difference in resolution/contrast between f/4 and f/8 is practically nothing:


f/4 vs f/8 at 200mm

I really find this irritating and moreover because of the weight a lot of time there is unavoidable shake

Huh? At 1.5 pounds it's slightly less weight than the 135mm f/2 that you recommended. I can shoot all day at that weight without experiencing any issues at all.


Or perhaps you meant that it was too light? So light that you get more shake? That's easy to solve,
just strap on some extra lead weights to the lens to help deaden your
shakey hands.

For portraits you would need a wider aperture than f4 for really good background blur and the 85mm and 135mmfulfillthat

I get nice diffuse background blur at 200mm f/4 all the time: just as much as the 85mm f/1.8, in fact. If you want super-thin DOF (difficult to nail focus, only one eye in focus, eyes but not ears/nose, etc.), then the 85mm and 135 are a better choice. But if you want to have diffuse background blur *AND* deep depth of field, the 70-200 is a better choice. It will let you have the entire face in focus and still get background blur.

[philipkochis]

I purchased a Canon 70 - 200 F/4 L (non is) for $575 from Adromona. It was a slightly used lens with no visible signs of wear.


The Lens is amazing; clarity, fast focus, accurate color. I highly recommend both the lens and Adromona. They have several


used Canon lens each at a different quality grade. you pick the amount of use the lens had had along with the corresponding price.

[Keith B]

I really find this irritating and moreover because of the weight a lot of time there is unavoidable shake

Huh? At 1.5 pounds it's slightly less weight than the 135mm f/2 that you recommended. I can shoot all day at that weight without experiencing any issues at all.


Or perhaps you meant that it was too light? So light that you get more shake? That's easy to solve,
just strap on some extra lead weights to the lens to help deaden your
shakey hands.

I found that the 70-200 f/4 L non-IS was too light. It did not balance out well with my 40D and I did experience a lot of shake. I just couldn't find a comfortable fulcrum point with it. I bet it would be great on a xxxD body. I never thought of adding weight to it. I ended up selling it anyway. I found myself needing that range at night and indoors so I ponied up for the 2.8 IS.

[Jeff Lucia]

I think the 70-200mm f/4 L is probably the best quality-per-dollar lens in the entire Canon lineup.

What Sean said.


I had the f/4 (IS) and found it remarkably sharp and color-accurate, with beautiful background blur. The non-IS version is one of those lenses that you often see on Craigslist for a song.