70-200 EF IS 2.8 vs 4.0

repost the question, 'cause I didn't like that "you call.." thing.

repost it and ask nicely. Also a simple "please" will help. Try to remember that one too now that you're going to repost it (nicely)

also tell me what you understood so far, so I don't have to repeat all over again. If you tell me what you nunderstood then I'll take it from there. That too would be nice.

genotypewriter said:

How do you measure this quality that you call "clarity"? Could you
give two reasonably comparable examples (one from each lens) that
contain different amounts of clarity?

Click to expand...

Don't you get it? He doesn't want to keep repeating himself ;-)
Nevermind that he hasn't said anything intelligible regarding "clarity".

From what I can gather it's a made up term he is using to describe some magical property the f2.8 has that is lacking on the f4. I've never heard of that term applied to a lens unless perhaps it was meant to denote sharpness or contrast but we already know the f4 has MORE of both of those qualities so who knows what it means. Maybe it's the inverse of contrast and he is trying to say that less contrast is a good thing?

--
Mike Mullen

markleh said:

if you had the lens then there are few things (very few) you should
report.
and you didn't

the quality of a lens is important, if not then we all can use a fuji
F10

Click to expand...

Um, no, there are many, many other great reasons to shoot with DSLRs other than the fact that we can use great lenses...

markleh said:

prints and nonsense:
and what that has to do with anything? quality is quality: there are
compromises (mainly about the money to spend) but that's about it.
the vast majority of the posters in this forum won't even print .
That doesn't necessarily mean that they can't appreciate a good
quality lens over another.

Click to expand...

"Prints and nonsense"? What has that got to do with anything? I don't even know where to begin... The whole point of my initial post, which you conveniently discounted, is that in REALISTIC OUTPUT, nobody can tell the difference between photos taken with the 70-200 vs the 70-300. Unless you're an unnecessary pixel peeper of course.

markleh said:

legends going around:

the 16-35 gives about the same quality of the 17-40 : not true.
the 85 1.2 vs. the 85 1.8 : same as above
the 70-200 F4 vs. 70-200 2.8 : same as above
50 1.4 vs. 50 1.8 : same as above

now guess who initiated the legends?

in any case you gave a remarkable contribution to the continuation of
the legends giving generic reports on items that I still believe that
you don't have.

Click to expand...

The only "legends" are the ones propagated on these forums about the fact that if you shoot with a remarkable lens that your photography will somehow improve. But the fact is that the only way to REALLY improve your photography is to better understand light and composition. Like I said, in standard print sizes, experts can't tell the difference between images taken with consumer zooms versus pro zooms. But anybody can tell the difference between photos taken by a skilled pro versus an untalented amateur, at any print size. Most would do better to spend the money they are spending on exotic glass and take some photography courses instead. But of course human nature is more inclined to buy the imaginary easy fix.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

that it takes more than participating to the forums to become a photographer and discuss with others pretending to know stuff. Because if you don't then it shows. I can see it, pretty much immediately. And I deal with optics for more than 30 years. LOL You can't hide that you don't know.

ok, a cheaper lens may look good to you but you must know that the faster ones are there for a reason. It was like that before. Not just now.

go to the digital picture dot com and let your eyes go wild for a minute or two: you'll see a lot of things comparing glass at the same aperture.

The fact that you don't know and you came to judge a lens by measuring the center sharpness and forget about all the rest (clarity, contrast across the frame) doesn't mean that I have to comply.

Now the good part:

the fact that you don't know how to judge a lens and the fact that you only listen to the concept that a cheaper lens is as good as the expensive one just because is cheaper makes me a genius compared to you.

now go a take a look: see? there is more in photography that you didn't know.

no need to thank me now. I couldn't care less of what you know and what you don't know.

no.. really.. I mean it I really don't care.

eheh

ChrisDM said:

I don't
even know where to begin...

Click to expand...

right. I know that you don't

what I see is that clarity and luminosity means nothing nowadays. All it counts is the center sharpness. Like we only produce for the web or to satisfy our hobby at home for tests.

in real life you come to notice other things: the fact that a (200,000 dollars) TV lens gives so much more luminosity (embarrassing compared to what I get out of a 1.4 or 1.2 lens on my cameras) also means nothing to the ruler testers and web fanatics.

Photography is something else. And a 5.6 medium zoom gives me nightmares and bad dreams when I sleep.

LOL

markleh said:

that it takes more than participating to the forums to become a
photographer and discuss with others pretending to know stuff.
Because if you don't then it shows. I can see it, pretty much
immediately. And I deal with optics for more than 30 years. LOL You
can't hide that you don't know.

Click to expand...

Actually... at the moment you're the one who seems to be "pretending" out of everyone involved in this conversation because you're the only one making claims without backing them up with reasoning or evidence. Saying that you have 30+ years experience is no different from saying you have bought all expensive gear and therefore you're talented.

markleh said:

ok, a cheaper lens may look good to you but you must know that the
faster ones are there for a reason. It was like that before. Not just
now.

Click to expand...

The faster lenses are there so you can have a faster shutter speed... we're not arguing that the 2.8 IS can't do that.

markleh said:

go to the digital picture dot com and let your eyes go wild for a
minute or two: you'll see a lot of things comparing glass at the same
aperture.

Click to expand...

Ok sure... here's the link to crops that compare the 2.8 IS against the f4 IS... could you kindly show us what you refer to as "clarity"?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

Is it the beautiful natural red glow near contrasting edges or is it the spectacular rainbow along the horizontal lines that makes the 2.8 IS so special?

markleh said:

The fact that you don't know and you came to judge a lens by
measuring the center sharpness and forget about all the rest
(clarity, contrast across the frame) doesn't mean that I have to
comply.

Click to expand...

Funny thing... the TGP site's crops are from different areas of the frame and they do include corner sharpness too. Also why don't you go to photozone.de and check the MTF values to see if they contradict what we're saying? Did you know that MTF is a measurement of contrast and sharpness?

markleh said:

Now the good part:
the fact that you don't know how to judge a lens and the fact that
you only listen to the concept that a cheaper lens is as good as the
expensive one just because is cheaper makes me a genius compared to
you.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? 2.8 IS was released in 2001 and f4 IS was released in 2006... do you think Canon was sleeping in that 5 years without improving their technology? Also take a look at the construction... the f4 IS is far superior if you can read and figure it out.

markleh said:

now go a take a look: see? there is more in photography that you
didn't know.

no need to thank me now. I couldn't care less of what you know and
what you don't know.

no.. really.. I mean it I really don't care.

eheh

Click to expand...

Talking to yourself as usual...

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

markleh said:

markleh said:

Photography is something else. And a 5.6 medium zoom gives me

Click to expand...

nightmares and bad dreams when I sleep.

Click to expand...

Your first sentence describes what is probably true for most of the posters on this board, regardless of brand allegiance. So, qualities, such as contrast , sharpness accross the frame, even in the center, color etc.... are not as important as someone that prints or exhibits their work.

Now, I am not offering this as a criticism BUT as a heads up, when recommending a lens, etc. to anyone. For the former, the IQ of the 70-300 is probably indistinguishible from a "better" zoom. A lens with soft corners may not be a handicap for a portrait photographer, maybe even a plus.

To suggest (I am not saying you are), that lens A is always better than lens B is not always true when the application is taken into consideration.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

can't you read?

you know how to read. So read it.

about the pictures you just have to look at them. You don't have to read now, just watch. Kindly. just watch. Is that so difficult?

can't you do it by yourself?

no?

ok.

then ask for help. find or pay somebody to help you on how to look at the pictures

then get back to me.

take your time, I'm not in rush.

as long as you understand everything fully and properly. That's what I really care about.

genotypewriter said:

Actually... at the moment you're the one who seems to be "pretending"
out of everyone involved in this conversation because you're the only
one making claims without backing them up with reasoning or evidence.
Saying that you have 30+ years experience is no different from saying
you have bought all expensive gear and therefore you're talented.

Click to expand...

You just hit the nail on the head.

When someone shows up not to help but to act like they (and they alone) hold the knowledge but they are above sharing it with mere mortals, that's when the BS alarms go off in my head. Here we have the perfect example of someone defending their pride and joy based on nothing more than wishful thinking and refusing to describe these wonderful properties in a meaningful way.

He would like to pigeon hole every participant who questions his unsupported and highly fanciful "knowledge" as mere beginners who only care about center sharpness. It is my observation that the people who are questioning his unorthadox pronouncements (and who have given him every opportunity to explain and support those beliefs) understand that center sharpness is just one characteristic of many important qualities. Although the f2.8 has less saturated color, less smooth bokeh, less contrast (center and edge), less sharpness (center and edge), more CA and less resistance to flare and washout he still pretends there is this one quality called "clarity" (that only photographers on his pedestal have knowledge of) and the f2.8 has more of this desirable and very special quality.

He seems to think the extra cost of the f2.8 somehow grants him access to this special quality. He doesn't seem to realize that an f2.8 lens simply has larger elements than a f4 lens and that is what explains the higher cost. Larger lenses are more difficult to make and present design challenges when it comes to maintaining image quality, not only wide open but at all apertures (especially contrast, color and resistance to flare/washout). Maybe he could design a f2.0 zoom with even more "clarity" and show us what he's talking about?

Every time he is questioned about his "special" knowledge he becomes beligerant, evasive and arrogant.

--
Mike Mullen

websurfer said:

These side by side comparisons in this website are not very reliable
cos I have tried the Sigma at the same time as I tried the four Canon
versions and the difference wasn´t that big: (such testing is simply
not satisfactory)

Click to expand...

True, however I did point out the side by side shots reveals "some of the differences".
--
Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/
Panasonic 18x, XTi, 70-200 f/4 IS, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Tokina 11-16, 2x

Bohdan said:

markleh said:

Bohdan said:

Photography is something else. And a 5.6 medium zoom gives me

Click to expand...

nightmares and bad dreams when I sleep.

Click to expand...

Your first sentence describes what is probably true for most of the
posters on this board, regardless of brand allegiance. So, qualities,
such as contrast , sharpness accross the frame, even in the center,
color etc.... are not as important as someone that prints or exhibits
their work.

Now, I am not offering this as a criticism BUT as a heads up, when
recommending a lens, etc. to anyone. For the former, the IQ of the
70-300 is probably indistinguishible from a "better" zoom. A lens
with soft corners may not be a handicap for a portrait photographer,
maybe even a plus.

To suggest (I am not saying you are), that lens A is always better
than lens B is not always true when the application is taken into
consideration.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

Click to expand...

I think that I know how the 70-300 performs



this 2006 picture of lance armstrong was taken during a press conference. The camera was a 1Ds (holding most of the credits for it) while the definition is good but not great. Far away from the definition of the current white zooms that I use.

The other fact to notice is that it was taken with a flash!. A flash.. let me point that out again. LOL

Usually I don't have to use the flash on a press conference because (due also to the many TV present) it's kind of .. not polite

without the flash the lens would've been useless

sorry. My opinion about that lens stays. And if I have to advice about it I'd make sure that you are not going to use it in less than perfect lighting.

About the definition I don't have time now to look for the tests and you'll have to take my word on it: it's not even close to the 70-200 F4 or 70-200 2.8 both IS , while is very very similar (in terms of definition) to the 70-200 F4 non IS. Still the coverage of the frame right off the center is not good at all. On a Full Frame it will be tough to use given the degradation at the borders, immediately outside the center to be clear.

it could be that you know very little about photography and I can't make you a photographer out of the blue simply because you are on a forum.

Actually that's a possibility.

once again participating to a forum does not make you a photographer, and doesn't give you a blank license to discuss with other photographers about stuff that you don't know.

like I said before it shows. Trust me, it does.

eyes, the difference in clarity and luminosity across the frame is kind of evident, and we know how that translates in the pictures...

markleh said:

ChrisDM said:

I don't
even know where to begin...

Click to expand...

right. I know that you don't

Click to expand...

Of my entire, lengthy and very informative post this was the only line you were able to come up with a halfway decent response to (even though of course it didn't pertain to the topic whatsoever)! Try again, or my point will be clearly made: Once again, in REALISTIC OUTPUT, nobody can tell the difference between photos taken with the 70-200 vs the 70-300. Unless you're an unnecessary pixel peeper of course.

Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about money
Photographers worry about light

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

I do not own any of these lenses, but considering to buy.

For me the decision is F4 for the following reasons: weight, cost, contrast and resolution (in practical terms ... a few lpm more or less, I don't care).

However, I care a LOT about very good quality (and quantity) of Bokeh. I am not sure if buying the F2.8 will give me THAT much more Bokeh advantage. My understanding is that I win about 50% Bokeh in numerical numbers, but can this be SEEN in real life ?

Interesting reading: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/aps-c_port/bokeh.htm

Not sure where to go from here. F4 or F2.8 ?
Best regards,
Markus

I hear you

and you are wrong again

the 70-300 is flat, has no personality, no deep enough, loses concentration right off the center, gives average pictures, the center sharpness is also flat, then it needs a lot of light if not will give flat and dark pictures at the same time.

of course all that will be reported on the prints, any size.

sharpness is not the only thing to look for, besides the 70-300 is not even sharp (it looks like but is not because the details are not there)

it's better than other cheap zooms. But it has (again) no personality.

also (like I said before in reply to another poster, where I also posted a picture I took with the 70-300) often without a flash the lens is useless.

want to hear more?

I don't know.. you tell me

give little to play with. You can increase the sharpness but that would be it

here a sample of the 70-300



here a sample of the 70-200 ( if was the 2.8IS but the F4IS would've taken pretty much the same shot -maybe with a little more harsh shadows-)



the "personality" of the two zoom is completely different. So is the coverage across the frame. And it will show on the prints, even the sharpness, because the 70-200 is much (much) sharper but not only that. And the same "increase" of USM if resized for the web or printed on a 4x6 can be applied to both , and the better one (from the beginning) wins.

Like I say in my own site "it's in the eyes: yous".

LOL

I agree...lenses have "personalities". There's much more to image quality than IQ. The 2.8 simply creates more wonderful images imo. All the sharpness of the F/4 is there, but also a more rounder, balanced depth.

Just my opinion, and hard to define, but it's why i bought the 2.8.

George

I am amazed that you guys can have such a long debate about these two lenses. I have the 2.8IS version and I am happy with it because I bought it when it first come out and use it to complement it with my 28-70 2.8L.

It is obvious that the F4IS version is a bit sharper than the older 2.8IS, but who cares anyway! Afterall, we are in the same Canon camp, I just want to see a direct shoot-out between the Sony, Nikon new VR 70-200 and the good old Canon 2.8IS.

All I can say is that, if you need 2.8, get the 2.8, that applies for all the L zooms. 16-35 vs 17-40? 24-70 vs 24-105? 70-200 4IS vs 2.8IS? Come on! We take photos of people, landscape etc etc, not buying the lens for shooting MTF charts and clarity test for God' s sake!

but this is a forum where all we do is ... talk about this stuff.

if you don't mind of course.

by the way: with Chris we're discussing some important topic, while your last post was about the advantage of a protective filter and the need of having a good one, since your counterpart bought some L lens then he shouldn't save on that and he should get a good one. I for one don't use any filter but come on.. is that really important for God's sake! ?