70-200/2.8 sharper than 70-200/2.8IS...reviews

Hmmm

not THAT different... I just dialed in 135 on the scale, cannot remember what the exif states thou but if it is important I'll find it. All shots taken within a few minutes and camera on tripod MLU and cable release.

I'm not a collector, just having troubble selling off old stuff Started with a used 4L which is a gem! Upgraded a year later to a used 2,8L for a bargain. Was offered a IS later that year and simply could not resist. My non-IS more or less sold to a friend. The 135 is my magical lens that I managed to find used at a stellar price....

Due to what I shoot, I'll end up keeping my IS and the 135, but the 4L was so cheap that I just keep it for back up.....

webdog said:

So I have too many lenses and too little time....
did a quicky to see how my lenses fare

Check out the bokeh not just the sharpness!

Click to expand...

These seem to be resized though, not crops?

--
Misha

So, in low light, shooting at 1/50 or 1/100, how much sharper is the non-IS compared to IS? or how much sharper is the f4 compared to the IS. Can the image even be used (and remember, you cant always take a monopod everywhere)

real-world use wise, the IS will give the most usable images. THis is why I got the IS over the non-IS. f4 is not even an option due to its limited aperture.

STi

Yes cropped....

focal lenght 153, 140 131 and 135 mm. Seems I was a bit sloppy with adjusting the focal lenght. Main purpose was to see how the bokeh was behaving though. I know all 4 lenses is sharp engough! Even wide open.

Was shooting in local church today, and could not use the 135 due to too low light. My 2,8IS saved my butt, as could not use a tripod at all. I find the IS simply amazing.

IS on 28-135 and the 70-200 is like day vs night. The 70-200 IS functions THAT MUCH better! Amazing...

My bad!
Slightly cropped and then resized for web....

WD

nt.

He posted those back in May in response to a question I raised at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/221308 and http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13402061 about the difference in shape/angularity of OOF highlights using the older non-IS's octagonal iris vs. the newer IS lens' more circular diaphragm. [Thanks, Lasse! ] I think the IS' iris may give you an extra stop over the non-IS' before OOF highlights start looking more octagonal than circular. What was never clearly established was the exact effect IS compensation has on OOF areas, i.e. whether it is possible to see a camera-shake-induced blur of OOF highlights, but this is a question that can be answered with any IS lens, and I'm sure an analysis won't produce anything significant pointing to distracting bokeh of IS lenses.

Bottom line of course is that the excellent IS saves many low-light shots and allows much lower shutter speeds handheld, while the non-IS is a cheaper alternative that gives you the ultimate in critical sharpness for just about anything but handheld low-light shooting.

I would consider this offer if I did't have a great Tamron 28-75 already. Thanks.

lwestfall said:

forp said:

ChrisDM said:

OK, I should have said that this shot would not have been possible
HANDHELD without the IS version... But that's exactly why I bought
the IS version. At an event like a wedding, I have this lens
attached to one body slung over one shoulder and a wide-angle setup
slung over the other shoulder. A monopod doesn't really fit into
this equation.

Click to expand...

True, if I shot weddings with it, the IS may be more useful than
the extra sharpness possible.

lwestfall said:

And no, I am all about comparing equipment, I am just saying that
these are two extraordinary lenses, and the primary reasoning for
choosing one over the other should be cost/use of IS, not whether
you think one or the other is sharper. As I said before, they both
produce fantastic, sharp images. Get the version that you need, not
the one that you think is sharper. If the 70-200 IS isn't sharp
enough for you, then your requirements are beyond that of most pro
photographers.

Click to expand...

They are excellent lenses, but I think one has to recognize that your
values in evaluating the trade-offs are not the same as everyone
elses. The IS hasn't been all that useful to me (judging by how
often I actually would have needed it in my photos) so I may
have been better off getting the non-IS version. This would
have helped in situations where the lens is too short and I have
to crop, or when I use a 1.4x TC (difference between the lenses
is magnified), more common situations for me than low light
situations where a monopod would be too much trouble (like
weddings I suppose, never having shot one myself).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

another test report...

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm

the space intentionally left blank

mmmmm.... must get 135f2L.....

No, it wouldn't have been this shot... It woud have been a high-noise version of this shot. One of the admirable qualities of this photograph is the smooth blur, and noise would interfere with that significantly, and noise removal would have lost detail in the face. Anyways, I'm never afraid to shot high ISO when the situation requires it, but thankfully to IS, this situation did not require it...

S Hess said:

ChrisDM said:

I realize that this is an equipment forum, where we discuss
equipment, but we are talking about 2 L zooms of identical range.
They both serve different purposes, though. The IS adds a great
level of functionality for certain types of shots, and if this is
useful to you, then get the IS model. If it isn't then don't get
the IS model.

You may get a few that say one is superior to the other, and vice
versa, ad nauseum. Don't buy the one that someone tells you is
sharper, buy the one you need... If after your purchase, you are
somehow dissatisfied with the image quality of your choice, I
guarantee you will not be satisfied with the other as well. They
both offer stunning image quality when used properly.

I have the IS version, and I use it. Here is a shot I recently got
at 200mm (320mm equivalent), at 1/40 second! I obviously wouldn't
have gotten this shot without IS. (This was also wide open at f2.8):



--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

This is a good article and shows that under more demanding conditions, the IS can result in a shot that is usable and sharp. I do a lot of handheld shooting and often in low light, so again it comes down to how much you want to pay for flexibility - I think the "loss" is detail is miniscule. I find my 70-200IS to be very sharp with superb colors and contrast - and I say this comparing to shots taken with my 50mmf1.4

So far I think this whole issue of sharpness on the 70-200 is a myth.

When I got myne, the colour and contrast immediately impressed, but that ultimate sharpness I can only dream of......Till I bought the 70-300 IS.

I am furious and glad, at least something is working...

I just repacked my 70-200 L IS USM + new black 350D, to go back where they came from-I hope both end up in Canon's museum, to show how the 2005 quality control to future kids was once apon a time-Enough is enough.

I hope this blurred mess is sorted out before saturday. Awful lot of money, and no real joy. I just prove that the black camera is partually cause of the problem.

I gave my grey 350D to my wife and bought her a 70-300 IS. She blow me away most of the time.

I have owned two of the 70-200 IS lenses. The first one was amazing, but I had to sell it to pay for other stuff. Then, I bought a used one sight unseen. It was a little blurry, so I sent it to Canon and they returned it to me in a week and it now produces super sharp images even at 2.8.
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com