70-200 Review up on Photozone

This is sharp, I agree.

jg

Synthetic tests such as the ones on photozone can give you a general idea of what to expect but especially with telephoto lenses you have completely different subject distances to consider (those lenses are mostly tested at the absolute closest focusing distance they can achieve) and at those the lens might (and in my experience will) exhibit a completely different behaviour!
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808

maybe you should read that before claiming things:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lensFAQ.htm

It might well be possible that 12m is not near enough to infinity, but i would not call it near min. focus distance (which is about 1.3m).

blabla0815 said:

maybe you should read that before claiming things:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lensFAQ.htm

It might well be possible that 12m is not near enough to infinity,
but i would not call it near min. focus distance (which is about
1.3m).

Click to expand...

I'd still not be happy about the setup, but that's just me. What's keeping me wondering is, why they would bother to retest a lens after focus calibration if in their review guidelines they clearly state that they are focusing manually to exclude focus inaccurracy...
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808

This problem might realy be sample variation in my opinion. I have got two arguments for this.

A large standard variation in user rating on this site for this lens is pritty large:
http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_top_ten.php

Further if we take a look at test of the Nikon variant, the 70-200 2.8 VR at Photozone ( http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm ) and at SLRGear.com, these two tests do not realy agre.

So there might be realy something in sample variation.

Reading user reviews/ratings at sites like lensplay and Fredmiranda certainly add value to your byers decision.

--
J. Keijmel

Sorry, but where did you read something about focus calibration? I only read "re-test after service calibration". So every service calibration only fixes focus issues. That was new to me...

I am not saying the test performed there are perfect, maybe there are some flaws. But when the reviewer states that he does manual focus bracketing, i have no reason not to believe him. So you may have to think of some more sophisticated flaws than missed focus, maybe it helps him to improve the test procedure.

blabla0815 said:

Sorry, but where did you read something about focus calibration? I
only read "re-test after service calibration". So every service
calibration only fixes focus issues. That was new to me...

Click to expand...

When I read "service calibration" it means one of two things (to me): focus calibration, or aperture calibration. (I suppose there could also be focal length calibration but I'm a bit doubtful about that.) If the lens was otherwise repaired (after damage, or observing decentering, as examples) I would have expected "repair". Perhaps a problem of language, or just not realising readers would try to pick it apart at that level of detail.

I've noticed a few odd things about photozone tests. Overall there seems to be a bit too much of a desire to get the "right" answer (suspecting a lens can't be "that bad" so testing again is an example). OK as far as it goes, but the problem is every lens should get the same treatment for that approach to allow comparison of lenses (especially when we don't have access to the raw data).

There may also be subtleties of the method that exaggerate differences (due to lenses or due to procedure) because, for the good lenses, the sensor is more of a limitation than the lens. I've not looked deeply enough into the method to know for sure. Of course there is a lot of very useful information there too.

It is certainly interesting to compare photozone results with the examples given above (and the-digital-picture tool), and ones own experience.

Ken

The only problem is: why does an L lens which costs a lot display such sample variation?

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

blackhawk13 said:

RLipp said:

i am looking to buy this lens.Are you saying at 200mm @F/2.8 that
the pictures arnt sharp only at 2.8.Do you recommend this lens or
save the money and get the F/4L.Isnt the 2.8IS considered the cream
of the crop.
Any input on this lens would help me make me decide on one or the
other.Thanks

Click to expand...

--It's my favorite zoom and Canon's best f/2.8 zoom. The f/4
version isn't in the same ballpark; it's one full f/stop slower.
The only other lense I want more is the 300 f/2.8 IS.

I shoot this lense wide open 90+% of the time, many times the only
reason I stop it down is because I'm overexposed, and have run out
of shutter speed/ ISO adjustment; it's too bright. I also shoot at
200mm a lot, and also use the 1.4x TC with it as well. This lense
gets me more keepers than any on my other L zooms, and more than
the couple primes that I have as well. Although my 50 f/1.2 does
maybe as well at or better at times, but has more CA than the70-200.

The 70-200's flare control and bokeh are sublime. As far as I'm
concerned, it's a keeper. I have no intentions of getting the f/4
version either; it's too slow!

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info with all the good thing about this lens that i heard i am going to pull the triger on the 70-200IS F/2.8 and buy it.

I think I agree - there's nothing much wrong with their sample image at 200mm and f/2.8:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/samples/IMG_2019-01.jpg

Extremely sharp pic - is this at f2.8?

jg

johgre said:

Extremely sharp pic - is this at f2.8?

jg

Click to expand...

Yup, [email protected], 1/400, ISO 400 on a 350D, just check the Exif file.
--
¤ Jordan (nadroJ)