70-200 F4 vs F2.8: which is sharper?

Viewed through a thick gelatin filter, the f/4 IS, in fact, is indistinguishable from pictures taken from my Kodak Disk camera.

I never understood why people insist on degrading an image by printing it before making a comparison.

David Indech said:

Calibrate it, and work on both your shooting technique and
sharpening settings. While the f/4 IS may be somewhat better at
closer distances, the difference is far outweighed by the loss of a
stop. Printed, the two are indistinguishable.

Click to expand...

Ravitej Khalsa wrote:
It has higher

Ravitej Khalsa said:

contrast, better color and so sharp that the Canon EF 1.4 II
extender hardly makes any difference when used.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. When I shoot with my 5D, and I am trying to maximum image quality, I avoid the 1.4 extenders (I have both canon and kenko pro). I notice the loss. It's not much, but it is noticeable.

Jimmy Joza said:

What frustrates me is not someone sharing their reality of lack of
sharpness at f/4 but the attempt (consciously or not) to
universalize it in the face of reports both supporting and not
supporting a claim that the 70-200mm IS f/4 L lens is sharp at f/4.
My lens is sharp at f/4 across it's range.
Jimmy

Click to expand...

I am coming back to it over and over again because each and every time I am ready to buy this lens again (after reading some glowing reports how this lens is sharp at 200 mm and MFD), there is another posting indicating that is not the case.

The recent one that triggered my avalanche of responses was this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23658406

Are you saying that his and mine experiences are unique? It is interesting that at least 4 or 5 posters saw the same problem, I experienced. It almost reminds my of EF 50 f/1.2 saga (some people never see problems with this lens that others experience).

--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

althecat said:

Viewed through a thick gelatin filter, the f/4 IS, in fact, is
indistinguishable from pictures taken from my Kodak Disk camera.

I never understood why people insist on degrading an image by
printing it before making a comparison.

Click to expand...

LOL. But there is truth to what you are saying.

althecat said:

Viewed through a thick gelatin filter, the f/4 IS, in fact, is
indistinguishable from pictures taken from my Kodak Disk camera.

Click to expand...

The images will be displayed online or printed. If they're online, they'll be downsized. Lens differences are immaterial. If they're printed, as I said, they're indistinguishable.

You're welcome to your Kodak Disk camera. I have a 70-200/4 IS. A friend has the f/2.8 IS version. The additional stop and the weight difference are far more significant than the subtle improvement in sharpness.

Would you disagree?

and i agree.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

mattr said:

althecat said:

Viewed through a thick gelatin filter, the f/4 IS, in fact, is
indistinguishable from pictures taken from my Kodak Disk camera.

I never understood why people insist on degrading an image by
printing it before making a comparison.

Click to expand...

LOL. But there is truth to what you are saying.

Click to expand...

The (illogical) argument that is sometimes articulated is that the pictures will end up being printed and so it is really only relevant what is seen on print.

But just because that may be true is no reason not to note quality distinctions that are lost along the way.

(be sure to ask that question first. If not, preface everything with "I read a test on the web that said...")

The 2.8 is infinitely better at f/2.8. It's very slightly better at f/4. The f/4 is very slightly better at f/5.6-f/13. I don't think I've ever shot either above f/13, but diffraction probably evens it out.

In real world use, f/4 and up are effectively equal. If you need f/2.8 for DOF/creative reasons, it's your only choice. If not, the f/4 seems like a logical purchase. The f/4 was the best bang-for-the-buck purchase, and one of the first lenses I purchased. As I learned more, and used DOF for creative reasons, I eventually needed to go with the 2.8.

Note - my f/4 was not the IS version - I assume the IS is approx. as sharp as the non-IS.

I have the older Canon 80~200f2.8L which I know is a touch sharper than the 70~200f2.8L non-IS because I compared mine to 3 samples of the new lens on Velvia years ago. I just received and compared the 70~200f4LIS against the old zoom and the results of my tests are as follows:

(Compared on my new XTi, Bogen 3021 with 3055 ball head, mirror lock with timer, no IS, AF activated for each new FL after manual minimum focus. RAW files opened in ACR viewed at 100% of mid range and infinity low and high contrast scenes).

70/80mmf4
About a wash with a slight advantage to the new lens.

The new lens was inconsistant across the frame with the right side extremely sharp, the left about a mark lower and the center is soft. My 70~300 DO is actually better across the frame at f4.5.

70/80mmf8
The new lens is noticeably sharper

100mmf8
The new lens is noticeably sharper

135mm f4
The new lens is noticeably sharper and more consistent across the frame

135mmf8
They are close but the new lens is more consistant and a little crisper

200f4
The new lens is noticeably sharper across the frame

200f8

Very close but again the new lens is more consistant across the frame and a little crisper.

280mm f5.6 with extender 1.4XII

I expected a decent performance at 280mm f5.6 but it's much worse than my 70~300DO. It was still noticeably softer than the DO at f8. Not even in the same ballpark as the DO, my 100~400 or, of course, my 300f4L. This was a big dissapointment. The new lens is compact enough to where I thought it could replace my DO for travel but I'm not so sure I want to give up the IQ above 200mm. The IQ is noticeably better than the DO until you get to 135/200mm where the DO gets real close. At 280/300mm it's no contest as the DO is just so much better.

I intend to create a thread with 100% crops from all the lenses including two samples of the 24~105LIS but it's going to take some time. I'm too busy with work at the moment. I compared everything in my bag at overlapping FL's.

BTW both of the 24~105 samples where markedly better than the 70~200 at 70mm f4 which was also a surprise. 70mm is not supposed to be the strongest FL for that lens but it is for the 70~200. I can only chalk this up to sample variation of which there was a lot between the two 24~105's.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.

ed rader said:

i bought the lens that was best for me. i trust you'll do the same
for you .

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could
identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

Click to expand...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

atroc said:

Both of the lenses are incredibly sharp.
They both, like any other lens, have minor flaws depending on use.

If you need the extra stop, or want the peace of mind of having an
extra stop.. get the 2.8.. if you are fine shooting f/4.0, get the
f/4.0. The differences between the two lenses in terms of IQ are
pretty negligable in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Best answer Ive seen.. Image quality on both is excellent unless you have a flawed copy -- the only real difference is the f/4 is much lighter and the 2.8 has the extra stop of light gathering. Pick one and you almost cannot be unhappy with the results. Both lenses rock.

--
-Sean

Gallery: http://www.seanrose.com

the f4 has an extra stop of IS and is a sharper lens. no need to straddle the fence to plactae both sides.

the OP asked which was sharper....and it's the f4 IS .

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

the f4 IS is the sharpest 70-200L lens made by canon according to photozone.

i've owned but the f4 and the f4 IS.

the non-IS is no slouch but the IS is clearly sharper lens wide open.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

oh come one, you don't really have to actually buy the thing to know all about it.

Any graduated to any internet forum will teach you that all you need to know is what others say about it.

oh well.. now if nobody actually has the thing then it will be an interesting floating of good information ...

take Ed whatever for example: he may get the info from somebody like him (who don't have the thing as well, and pretending to have it.. like pixsurgeon or pixfake).. now that will be fun to watch: a discussion between those two...
LOL

fakers talking to other fakers about a fake.

fantastic

and fantasy island strikes again

the delirium:

now I see already fakers like Ed whatever saying " ok I don't have the thing and you do, but I know better than you about it because ive been reading all the posts on the internet)

valium? yeah

too much internet for you. take a break and don't spread BS around.

Which is sharper, it's hard to say.

Old photodo.com ratings are:

70-200 f/2.8L: 4.1
70-200 f/4L: 4.1

Slrgear compared 70-200 f/4 IS to the older 70-200 f/4

and they found them equally sharp: no 'better sharpness' was evidenced in the IS version...

--
Feel free to visit my homepage: http://tom.st

some time ago I posted a couple of shots I took with both. My copies are like this:

the cheaper one is a bit sharper, but darker , plus the IS of the big one (when it doesn't lock the camera) appears to be more effective. The bokeh is very similar, and that goes for the perception within pros that the F4 is not "as deep" as the big one

my conclusion: the F4IS is a great lens while the 2.8IS is a slightly less great lens but has the tendency of delivering the shot easier.
the f/4 (the aperture) and the less luminosity really kills the cheaper one.

still I won't get rid of the F/4IS because I like it, but I like the 2.8IS more.

I wish that Canon will upgrade the 2.8 IS soon.

for an amateur I think that the F4IS will be a great opportunity to get closer to the performance of a professional zoom like the 2.8 IS.

also because of the money it is easier to own.

the size is great but the pictures will eventually suffer from the limited aperture.

as soon as the sun goes down and an higher ISO will take place there the 2.8 IS wins. obviously

Im not really fencing the question; the difference is rather negligable. But, yes, ed is right that the f4 is sharper, according to photozone.de's MTF resolution figures.

Not exactly! He tested with close up lens (Canon 500D), but the results should be similar and this is promising...

Take a look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=4&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=103&Camera=9&LensComp=404