When I was working professionally, I used the 2.8 version. As a news photographer, I never knew what conditions I would face. The 2.8 gave me the best chances for success. Now retired, I much prefer the f4 version. I have the USM IS version 1. I tried a version 2 f4. For the cost to trade up, I felt there was not enough difference between v.1 and v. 2.

Brought out the OG 70-200 last weekend for a sporting event. On a crop sensor, this has the reach, focus speed and sharpness and color I was looking for. Still as pleased with the images from the lens today as I was 12 years ago. It's the reason I still have a 70D.

The original one (non-IS) gives a lot more bang for the buck. Used to shoot college soccer games and it had NEVER let me down. It's only flaw is the lack of weather sealing.

I might add.......I own the 2006 model and have many years of satisfied use on it . But when I tried the 2016 version the first thing I noticed is how silent the image stabilization was compared to my older 2006 model. Secondly, I saw a substantial improvement in FLARE RESISTANCE on the 2016 model..... also, the newer version also had slightly more saturated colors .......and last, the FEEL of the rings and how it operates, for me, is superior on the newer version. If I was to buy either now I would DEFINITELY buy the 2016 version

From my tests, the IS II has worse bokeh, vignetting, chromatic aberration and distortion than the first IS. The only impromevents were a slightly bump in sharpness/contrast and a slightly bump in IS performance. For me, that uses it as a portrait lens, the version II is useless, specially because of the bad bokeh. The first IS will still be around my camera bag and version II is going back to the store.

straight to the point and appreciate this video. exactly what i was looking for. thanks!

It ended up being an easy decision for me between 2006 IS version and 2018 IS II. I was able to get the former on sale for $930, but the 2018 IS II is still going for $1,700. These are Canadian prices, effective April 2021. Not sure why the huge discrepancy, but the $750 premium for the latest version is not remotely worth the money. Thanks for the video.

Thanks for the comparison! I got the older 70-200 IS for 599 euro's yesterday!

Thanks for the vid. Still using 06, was thinking i made a bad choice not upgrading, but your case made it clear. 10+ years later. Beach wedding F/L IS USM. 06 Still killing it with Ai Lightroom assistance. More $ is not always better if skilled. Case closed. A+

I often used to buy lenses looking for the next best thing. That stopped for me when I bought the IS ver 1 and a 24-70 2.8 ii. I put them on separate 5D3 bodies around 2013 and haven't bought any gear since. They just work.

I am looking at the 70-200, for me a good used lens would be acceptable but which one? IS would be my main draw toward a second or third model, and on the strength of this review, a good 2nd model would be my best option. Thank you for a good solid neutral review of Canon's 70-200 options. The heavier 2.8 when usage, price, and weight are thrown into the mix makes it too expensive so the F4 Mk II is what I would lean towards. Thank you for this excellent overview. Ps Just found a good-condition Mk II example.

Very helpful vid, just picked up a 2nd hand 2006 model for 500 US dollars with 12 month warranty from a camera store. Saved some good dollars thanks bud.

Quite true, but this seems to be a lab-only test. I have the old IS version and have tested the IS II. There are major improved factors. The build quality is slightly better (you mentioned the zoom ring, it always bothered me, this is fixed). The AF (though it was fast and accurate already) had been improved incredibly, easily comparable to the f2.8 IS II. And the IS is also 2 stops better, which for me meant that the framing was static at 200mm, handheld. So, I don't agree with the 10% improvement, you virtually get a same quality lens as the f2.8 IS II in every aspect (besides the f-stop), which tells something. I do not plan to upgrade though, I bought my f4 IS for 600$ almost new.

I own the F4L non IS lens, it's really a fabulous lens, great for landscape photography. I'm considering buying the 2.8l is ii, they are being sold used for around 1200 now. The F4 is great but there has been times when the 2.8 aperture would of been helpful to keep iso down. Cant go wrong either way, they're all sharp and magnificent lenses.

I bought 1999 version it’s fantastic

Thanks Gerald, I'm in the market for one of these. This video is very informative and definitely helped me decide to go with the middle lens.

Thanks for the help deciding! Very informative video.

This is was straight up eveyrthing I needed to know, Really helpfull

It is also to note the new lens is designed for the new bodies in mind in terms of firmware. If you have a camera body before 2017, get the older version of this line up.

I have the 1999 version, not worth upgrading unless going for a 2.8

Nice video. I found out that i need IS for my needs but not the latest model.

Love my old IS version (2006) on my 6D mk ll its a work horse and the image quality is tbh pretty awesome , great video ;-)

Really good video and explanation thxs

5:06 I really appreciate this comparison video, but the 2006 IS version is absolutely sharper in this image than the 1999 version. I know it's probably because you're looking at the actual Rubik's text (but that's not exactly where the lens grabbed focus). Look at the edges of where each image grabbed focus.

Nice review… the ISii has 3 position IS rather than 2 position on the 2006 model… I have read position 3 is better for video? Is that the case? What is the difference? Is it just quieter? Thanks

For people who are thinking about the older 70-200 f/4, both the IS and Non IS. They both have issue on focusing ring slipping, and yes they are commonly found, KZfaq it. I just send mine to Canon for repair, costs me $400 Canadian dollars. They replaced the USM assembly and decentering collar.

Nice comparison of Image-quality. But In my opinion you totally missed to show the difference between the two IS-versions. The quality of version II is much better and gives you a lot mor stabilization. In numbers its 2 stops more... you really can experience the difference in real life. One still have to question himself if it's worth to buy version II - specially when you already have version I and all the filters... but in my opinion when you have non yet, buy either non IS or version II - except you get a really amazing deal on version I.

Great video again. Love the time stamps for navigation!

Thanks a lot. Your English is so clear.

Tanks I got a used 1st generation in really good shape for $300 I wanted the f2.8 but at this price it was impossible not to get it. So far so good, but to great

I just bought my canon 70-20mm IS 2006 version for around $450.00 and I have seen most going for around $500.00 used

The video everyone wanted 😃 thanks 🙏

I adore the new version. I am getting phenomenal portraits with it.

Thanks for the video, great review. I got the non IS a while ago, and it's a great lense. I just have to shoot over 250 though cuz I got shaking hands. ;)

Nice video. Thank you. A comparison between the 2.8 and the 4 would be also great...

Great informative vid mate, thanks.

Great video! I've seen the 2006 model going for 650 or even as low as 575

I like your speed !! Fast ! To the point! Excellent !!thxthxthx

I've got the III 2.8 version now, need to get used to it, but my 24-105 is broke, so good reason to enjoy it :P Very interesting video :)

Very helpfull comparison. Thank you very much.

It helped me too. I just bought the 70-200 f/4L IS II USM i didn't know its a 2018 lenses,anyway thanks for the video.

Awesome comparison, thank you!

I bought 2006 version 4 years back for $600 still a good deal today

I cannot justify the 2.8 versions so the f4 is going to be an ok lens ,if I was doing this for money The 2.8 version 3 would be the way to go

I have a Canon T7 and I was thinking buying the Original 1999 F4 for 400 Euros(Used). Do you think it's worth it ?

Helpful and nice review.

You are the man! Thanks for the info! Great video!

Look for the first IS Version on a used market. Have got mine for 540€ in "mint condition".

Straight to the point. Thanks!

Wich one do you think is better for low light fotograph.... canon ef 70-200 f/4 is or f/2.8 without IS

Nice work. Thanks!

I’m currently considering the 2018 for Motorsports. Good idea or should I be opting for the f2.8? I do a lot of panning and sometimes shoot at 1/1600 in daylight. Not always too bright in the U.K.!

gerald, do you know if mode iii in IS II works on the EOS R line? The current issue we are facing with adapting EF lenses to the EOS R is that somehow the IS is active all the time. I want to know if mode III deals with that issue.

Great review! Thanks man!

not something you can test on the bench easily.. but i reckon the VR version break more often.. i like the elements to be glued hard in place with no fragile mechanism - dont wnt blur? stills use 1/200 video? tripod/heavy rig

The 1999 model lens fits with the EOS REBEL 100D (SL1)?.🤔

I have this habit of buying it before watching the reviews. But thank got I didn’t waste my money.

Solid review! Bought the non stabilized version. Thanks a lot.

Crackign video. 10/10. Thank you.

A great video very helpful easy to listen and understand I will be hitting the subscription icon looking forward to your next video

Very nice showdown, great explanation there, even put some of your thoughts in the end with really strong points. Now i understand why my friend chose the original one, since he's more into video rather than photo, and almost always put on stick or gimbal

Just ordered the f/4 IS II. What's the better option with GH5, using the lens IS or the GH5 IBIS? Thanks!

Very helpful and to the point.

Great video. I am contemplating getting this and the 6D MkII. Subbed. :-)

Can you comment on how loud IS is on the new one? I used a 2006 F4IS version and found the IS to be noticeably loud especially when doing video. The F2.8 IS version was much quieter when I tried it. Thanks for a great review!

It was very useful comparison. I am looking for f/2.8 comparison.

Hi Gerald IS is more important for walking photography? Can u help me find is or non is 70-200mm lense I don’t want to spend more money on is lense what is the great difference on is or non is? Please let me help to find out thanks for ur video it was great

I got the cheapest one, couldn't be happier, as long as my shutter speed is fast enough.

If you own a more modern Canon that has IBIS like the R10/R7/R5 etc it’s a no brainier…go for the original. Only drawback is having no weather sealing, but has never let me down and I have shot in base weather lots !!! but I am careful.

It's parfocal lenses or not?

Dude, you're comparing sharpness of out-of focus parts ?..

You didn't mention that the newest version has a quieter focus and IS motors which make it much better for video.

Fantastic video, subscribed!!

What do we have to do for a 70-200 Sony 2.8 GM lens review Gerald ?!

what did you recommend to me about this 3 types of lens when i shoot a wedding photography? please help me to decide. thank in advance

Thanks, it was wery helpful :-)

Get the 70/200 f4 non IS .......the best lens

Any chance you could compare IS on the F4 II, F2.8 II and F2.8 III for video use?

Great comparison between the 3. I really want the MKII IS, however the price difference is around £350 in the UK between MKI & MKII, I'm leaning towards the MKI IS however... is the IS really that loud?

I've have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non IS for years, it costs a fraction of the Canon f4, and it does a pretty good job. For some reason it appears smaller than the Canon. I wish Canon made a black version, and I'd be all over it. The white one makes you look like, and get treated like, a Pap!…

Thank you for helping me out. I'm buying the 2006 version today itself for my 6dmk2.

Just bought the older version for $475, and a 2x teleconverter for $320, to use with my APS-C camera for the upcoming eclipse in April. Should give me an equivalent of 640mm.

"If you plan to hand bomb this thing at even modest cheddar speeds..." 6:18 what does that even mean lmaooo

Why did you skip past the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L MK I USM?

Thank you very much' this video is very helpful!

ha! awesome video opening track!

Great review!

Inbound: 70-200/2 in R mount.

nice video, it's short with value info inside

I'm an American living in South Africa and just ordered the 2006 model of this lens from a camera store here. It will be here in a couple of days. Got it for my wife for Christmas. She has always wanted an L lens and I was able to get this lens in very good condition for only $370 or in this economy 7,000 Rand. I think it was part of a Black Friday Special. Thanks for putting out this great videos Gerald. We learn alot from you. God bless and.... Merry Christmas! Ho Ho Ho..... Lol.

Osxm videos bro good works love from Pakistan

Like it! Great work.

Has flaring or CA changed in the newer version?

Great comparison

How is it that Nikon (with similar quality lenses) managed to keep their lens housings black while Canon has to resort to a beige color to reflect sunlight (heat)? A black lens looks so much better matched to a black camera body.

Great information

I just bought the 2006 f4 is usm for only $400 used but like new, full set, because the previous owner rarely use this lens.. 😂

That was helpful Gerald, cheers

I’ve got the 70-200 original 1999

70-200 IS lll is the bomb! Awesome lens