I do agree with the general thumb advising that every lens performs at its best starting from two stops darker than its maximum aperture, which means f/2.8 lenses get their best at f/5.6 whilst f/4 lenses have to go down to f/8 to reach their top. But with the latest lens technology the difference is hardly visible especially with top quality lenses like Canon’s L series. Therefore to fill up the mostly needed range spanning between ultra-wide to telephoto I chose f/4 zooms of Canon L series.

With arrival of the brilliant 24-105mm f/4 L IS which offer general purpose range with Canon’s proven image stabilizing technology into my drybox, I have completely cover the favorite range between 17mm to 200mm all in Canon f/4 L series. The new comer accompanies 17-40mm f/4 L ultra-wide zoom and 70-200mm f/4 L medium telephoto I bought before. In my opinion, in term of focal range, all the three fits each other perfectly, with a bit overlap among them giving extra comfort especially as I only own one camera body. As the numbers shows, the ultra-wide goes to 40mm whilst the general purpose starts from 24mm, the general purpose ends at 105mm whilst the medium telephoto starts from 70mm.

Unfortunately the more capable my setup is, the less chance I have to spen my time using it. But that’s the way life goes, I think. Just like the most of us, it takes more time to make more money to spend on hobbies. However, with better set on hand I believe that I can make the less chances I have more enjoyable ones.

I have to admit that I have always been comparing telephoto lenses with the brilliant Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D I owned during my Nikonian days. I guess that was the honest reason on me being nuisance in choosing optical equipments. Unfortunately my pockets are shallow. When I put my hands in to draw some money, it is very easy to reach the bottom end. So the luxury to get the best option available is just not mine. As always, I have to dance among need, passion, and money.

My first grab on Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L belongs to my fellow Bali photography enthusiast was impressive. Noting absence of IS I had similar impression with my old Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D. But it was a Ferrari in its own species, and as anything else in life, there is price for every bit of excellence. Another issue I was considering was weight. 1,310 grams of Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D was a real burden in active outdoor sessions, in many occasions giving enough reason to go out without it. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L is even heavier at 1,470 grams. Finally presence of IS which I consider nice to have but something I can live without, especially when the price of having it quite significant.

Leaving aside third party contenders like Sigma and Tamron, Canon quartet of 70-200mm in its L series were the only options I considered. The family members were:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L  – 1,470gr – $1,700
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (non IS) – 1,310gr – $1,150
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L – 760gr – $1,050
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS) – 705gr – $650

Canon officially confirmed that all the four shared identical optical and construction quality, so the consideration went to three parameters, speed (maximum aperture), weight, and price. Minor thing to consider as well was tripod collar which was included with both f/2.8 version and optional to both f/4 version. Whilst its light weight of both f4 versions allowed them propery work without tripod collar, it was nice to have and give a better ballance especially when used in conjunction with tele-converter. Tripod collar for f/4 was available from Canon at an additional cost of $65. Third party product was also available at around $30. Another thing was filter thread. F/2.8 versions took 77mm filters whilst f/4 version took 67mm. Whilst price might not be an issue for cheap brands, difference was quite significant for high-end brands like all versions of B+W and pro series of Hoya.

Finally I decided to go for the cheapest version, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS), with the following considerations:

1. It inheritsed equal optical, mechanical, and construction quality.
2. I was very light, less than a half of the heaviest Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, which would be definitely delightful in long outdoor session.
3. It was very cheap, almost one third of the most expensive Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, and almost a half of IS version of f/4.
4. I decided to trade one stop of aperture for affordable weight. Shooting at telephoto I guess one stop narrower was still very capable in producing pleasant bokeh. With high ISO performance of my Canon 5D body, I was comfortable to trade one stop of ISO for one stop of aperture. Beside, for the sake of vibrance shooting portraiture – where 70-200mm mostly worked with full frame camera – requires a higher ISO anyway.
5. I decided to trade the aid of IS for saving $400. I have lived without along with a lot heavier Nikon 80-200D, so for that amount of money, I was prepared to life that way longer and happy enough with the light weight alone. Again, I would depend to both increasing ISO and the hassle of carrying a monopod in low light.

After a few weeks of tuning into local forum, I finally cut a decent deal. A Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS) in mint condition, still have 7 months remaining warranty, coming along with all purchase package (including warranty card, box, caps, hood, pouch, booklet and plastic sheet), Hoya high quality HMC UV filter, and a third party tripod collar, at about $500. I would have to spend at more than $700 to get the same setup brand new.

First experience was just stunning. Crisp clarity down to the edges, slightly softer edges at the widest aperture which only noticable when the image was blown out extra large. AF works very fast and accurate in almost every situation. Well, to be honest I intentionally said “almost” just to be in the safe side. In fact so far I have never find a situation when it did not work. I was so happy with the excellence at a very light weight package. A little negative was about DOF isolation, bokeh. A little game of distance was required to get desired bokeh, which sometime costed in composition. This example was taken at the longest focal of 200mm, widest aperture of F/4, and medium ISO of 400.

This lens is a real keeper. I think it is the best value for money among the four. I do not think I would want to spend my money to buy the top of the line Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L. For certain result only allowed by f/2.8 I prefer to go for EF 135mm f/2 L priced at about $700. I may want to get the IS version of f/4, but only if I got a lotter, otherwise I prefer to save the $400 for other things.

Main lenses in my Nikon day was as follow:

• AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D (last gen. w/tripod collar).
• AF Nikkor 50mm F/1.4
• AF Nikkor 35-70mm F/3.3-4.5
• Sigma EX 10-20mm F/4-5.6 HSM

Changed into my Canon days with the followings:

• Canon EF 17-40mm F/4 L
• Canon EF 50mm F1.8 Mark II (replaced later with Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F/1.4)
• Canon EF 35-80mm F/4-5.6 (sold later)
• Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (sold later)

Trusting a number of reviews on the net – which proven to be true – saying that even cheap crappy lenses result in better pictures in full frame cameras compared to top-of-the-line lenses on APS-C cameras, I comfortably decided to go for Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM to replace my brilliant AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D for portraiture and telephoto.

Definitely the feeling in my hand between the two was extremely different. About 1,300 grams in full metal barrel and inner zoom of Nikon super-fast tele-zoom felt a lot more sturdy in my hand compared to 400 grams or so small plastic tube of the mediocre Canon. But price was extremely different as well. I got the used Nikon for about $750 (brand new was priced at $1,000 at that time) whilst I spent only $110 (brand new was priced at $180 at that time) for the used Canon a year later.

Coming to the most critical issue which is result, Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM gave brilliant result with my Canon EOS 5D, regardless almost all friends and online reviews advised the opposite, especially when used with APS-C bodies. Sharpness, detail, and tone were brilliant. I would say that bokeh is nothing to worry too much in this range. Even bad lenses offers creamy bokeh in long focal.

However, performance is of a different issue. A am not a technical savvy who knows good technical presentation to show performance indicators, so it is purely a experience of an amateur user. Whilst focusing speed was sufficient to my need, and absence of IS was not felt as a problem as my previous Nikon did not have VR as well, I note a few problems:

• Vignet was clearly visible.
• Softening around the edge was visible, although in most telephoto shots with smooth bokeh it may even offer positive effect.
• Flare handling was mediocre, just don’t try to use it against the sun.
• Focusing performed bad in overcast background.

The picture below compares shots taken with different telephoto zooms. The left-hand side was taken by Nikon D200 with AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D, and the right-hand side was taken with Canon EOS 5D with Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, both at their own maximum focal length of 200mm and 300mm respectively.