Today, we're gonna discuss the journey
of this lens from 1999 to this lens from 2018.
Let's get Undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What is happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone
and today, we're gonna be doing a bit of a mix
between an overview of a new Canon lens
and a little bit of a Creative Tech News deep dive
like we did the Samyang and Rokinon video from last month.
I'm borrowing this new lens,
as well as the other ones you see here
from Camera Canada because they wanted me
to make this video because they were excited
about a new lens that they were getting:
Canon's new 70-200mm f/4
because it's been nearly 12 years since the last update
in this extremely popular line.
So, let's talk a little bit about the advancements
this lens has made over the years
and try to determine whether or not its worthy
of an upgrade or if you'd be better off
staying at a previous edition at a reduced price point.
[relaxing electronic music]
♪
So, here's Canon's lineup of f/4 70-200mm.
You've got the original from 1999, this is f/4L USM.
This is the least expensive of the lineup,
coming in at around $650 USD,
and this one is still in production today.
Then, in 2006, Canon added image stabilization
and weather sealing to the lens for the f/4L IS USM,
but it came in at double the price at nearly $1,200 USD.
Then finally, just in, we've got the 2018 f/4L IS II USM,
which is about 10% more than the 2006 version
at around $1,300 USD. In addition to the lineup
of f/4 lenses, Canon also has four 2.8 versions
of the 70-200, like this one, which is the current flagship,
the f/2.8L IS II USM, but this one is currently
no longer in production and is going to be replaced
next month by the IS III. The f/2.8 lineup went through
a similar track to the f/4 line,
with there being an original, unstabilized version
which came out in 1995,
and then three stabilized versions in 2001, 2010,
and then like I said, a new one coming out in 2018.
The f/2.8 version, while being a full stop faster,
is nearly twice as heavy and twice as expensive
at every comparable level to the f/4s.
But, getting back to the f/4s, let's talk about
what they all have in common, first of which
is obviously they all have a maximum aperture of f/4
and they all have a minimum aperture of f/32.
They all have the same viewing angle
and they're all very, very close in size and weight
with each subsequent release getting a little bit taller
and a little bit heavier, but we're talking about
millimetres and grams here,
and they're all from Canon's L series,
with their ultrasonic motor for fast focusing.
Now, the two older models continue to have
more in common, but this is where the newest release
starts to break away. These two have the same number
of blades at eight, the same closest focusing distance
at 1.2m or 3.9 feet, the same magnification of 0.21x
and they use the same old lens hood.
The new model, however, receives improvements
in all of these specs with nine blades as opposed to eight,
a closer closest focusing distance at one meter
or 3.3 feet, a 0.27x magnification
and the new ET-78B lens hood.
The lens hoods are virtually identical.
The main difference being that the new one
doesn't have the old velvet style inside to them
and it comes with a release button,
which I like because it gives you a more satisfying click
when it's in and you press the button, it comes off
versus trying to line up and slot the little grooves in there
and wait for it to click in and you're not really sure.
It's a pretty minor improvement, but I like it.
I like the new lens hood. There's also an increase
in the filter diameter from 67mm to 72mm,
but this is more of a drawback than an advancement
to anybody that already has a bunch
of 67mm filters and accessories.
Cosmetically, I think the new lens looks better.
I prefer some of the new accents and touches
here and there and I definitely like the more neutral gray
better to the kind of yellowy-gray of yester year.
Something I noticed about the IS version
compared to the original is that the original had
rather stiff rings for both the zoom and the focus,
but the IS version are much, much looser,
which I find can get quite a bit of acceleration
and make for a rather loud stop when you hit the end,
but the new 2018 IS II seems to have found
a happy medium between the two
in terms of stiffness and looseness,
and I think it's both noticeable and nice.
It's a noticeable improvement. I like it.
The newest lens also has some minor improvements
in image quality, but they are definitely minor.
Let's take a look at some side-by-side images that I took
and you can see what I mean.
♪
So, this first shot is at 70mm.
The lenses going from left to right, oldest to newest
and they are very, very close.
There's a slight variation in focus between them,
which might make some elements appear sharper
than others, but the rendering is almost identical.
Then, at 200mm, we see pretty much the same thing.
My takeaway here is that with IS turned on
with the 2006 model, we get slightly less sharp
images compared to the original 1999 USM,
but the colours are the slightest bit richer,
but the 2018 model seems to have found
a balance again between stabilization, sharpness
and contrast. Now, let's go into Lightroom,
zoom in a little bit and see the same effect reproduced.
First, we have the 2006 IS version on the left
and the 1999 USM original on the right.
Here, we see the same results, slightly better contrast
on the IS version, but a little bit sharper
on the non-IS version.
♪
Now, if we compare those results to the new model
and bring the 2018 version in on the left,
we see that the newest release offers even better contrast
and slightly improved sharpness.
♪
Now, we're really pixel peeping here
because on first and even second glance,
these images seem virtually identical.
So, which one should you buy if you need one today?
Well, that can be answered pretty easily
by asking two questions. The first one is:
do you need weather sealing and image stabilization?
And two, how much is the 2006 version discounted?
If you plan to hand bomb this thing
at even modest shutter speeds,
then you might want to look at getting
the image stabilized version. I found that at 200mm
that anything under 1/200th of a second
had significant up and down blur in my images.
But, if you're using this primarily on a tripod,
then that won't be an issue.
As far as weather sealing goes, if you're planning on
getting gritty with the lens, then weather sealing
might be useful to you, but keep in mind
that it only works if you attach it
to a weather sealed body. So, if you're gonna be
shooting in controlled settings on a tripod,
then done, decision made. Get the non IS version.
It costs only half the amount of the IS version
for virtually identical image quality.
Now, when it comes to the 2006 IS
versus the 2018 IS II, it's a bit tricker.
I think that when they're both a full price
and there's only $100 difference between them,
then it's worth getting the new one.
It does carry some minor improvements.
It does look and feel better, so I think that's worthy
of the 7% increase in price.
However, because the 2006 version
is now officially out of production,
its possible that you'll get a discount greater than $100
on this version and in that case, it might be worth
snatching up those discounts.
It's hard to put an exact dollar amount
on how much these upgrades are worth,
but I would say that if you're saving $200 or more
on the older version, I would get the cheaper one.
Lastly, for those that are considering an upgrade
and already have one of these lenses,
if you're going from the non-IS version
and considering getting an IS version,
then the same rules from before apply.
Do you need image stabilization?
Do you need weather sealing, etc.?
But, if you have the 2006 version
and you're thinking, "Should I upgrade
to the 2018 version?" I would be a bit more hesitant,
especially if you have filters and accessories already
for the 67mm diameter. That being said,
I do think that Canon priced this one effectively,
paying around 10% more for about a 10% better lens.
Anyway, that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found
this video helpful or at least entertaining, and if you did,
make sure you leave it the old thumbs-up
and consider subscribing if you haven't already,
but if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
feel free to hit the dislike button twice.
Alright...I'm done.
♪