New 100-400 in a few months?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,980
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to joger, Apr 3, 2013

joger wrote:

schmegg wrote:

joger wrote:

surprised to see YOU quoting DXOmark

Sure - DXO predominantly ranks the wide open performance and since the f/4.0 version is one stop slower it can never be on the same level according to their ranking - it is also double the weight and a bit bigger . . .

Meh - I have less problem using DxO data if the body used remains the same for each comparison - as it does in this case.

Photozone agrees - "It surpasses its predecessor easily and it did even manage to top (very slightly so) the EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS".

But who cares - I don't. Just surprised you'd accept second best. Seems your normal "no compromise" approach does have some limits after all!

the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slower and lighter lenses - as said before - zooms are for convenience and lean traveling (IMHO) - the 70-200 f/2.8 is a quite heavy lens for hiking and it is a bit bulky as well - the difference to a good deal better and longer range prime is not that big - thought several times about getting the 70-200 f/2.8 II but skipped it because it does not bring significant advantages and it is quite heavy.

That is indeed a compromise.

The 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slow zooms - and probably not really much worse but the other slow zooms are a good deal worse then the 70-200 f/2.8 II

Yep - though maybe not a 'significant' deal worse for many - just as the difference between the 2.8 II and the 4 is not 'significant' to you.

(in theory a f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens - look here)

The article does not conclude the an "f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens" at all.

It actually says ...

"The sweet spot of any lens is at medium aperture values because aberrations are reduced and diffraction effects aren’t strong yet."

where does this statement differ from mine? I said in theory

LOL! Fair enough.

Yet some really good primes perform excellent wide open and almost as good as stopped down one or two stops

I'd certainly buy it if it is also lighter then the current 70-200 II

Zooms are for lean traveling and convenience aspects - otherwise I prefer primes

Yep - me too.

seems we (almost) fully agree

Yeah - I think we agree on many more things than we disagree on. And I suspect much of what we don't agree on is in the realm of "value judgements" - which means neither of us is really 'right or wrong' - we just have different values.

And I think that's why many people are still quite happy with the current 100-400L. It does deliver great images in many situations and is still reasonably portable with a very convenient zoom range for certain applications.

Would I want a newer one? Well, I'd not say no of course, but it'd want to be pretty damn good and at a reasonable price to tempt me away from my current one - unless someone gave it to me!

Faster AF, updated Mode3 IS, lighter, but still a push-pull design, with some upgrade to IQ perhaps (though this is less important than the preceding things to me - apart from the bokeh which I would like to see improved) and I might be interested (if the price wasn't too much higher than the current one - which is highly unlikely).

But that's just me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow