EF 40 STM - my 1st impressions (sweeet) ;-)

Started Jun 21, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP joger Veteran Member • Posts: 4,417
Re: more


I did not notice before that the 200 f/2.0 was tested with almost all recent DSLRs from Canon. Very interesting to see the real world differences between the different cameras.

It is even more interesting that the differences I saw from friends (using 7Ds and 50Ds) are even worse in direct competition.

So to sum up all collected information:

1.) The compared tele zoom is inferior to FF and not cheaper and not significantly lighter either => 1:0 for FF

2.) The comparison 85 f/1.2 vs 135 f/2.0 is heavier, more expensive and inferior in quality => 2:0 for FF

3.) The battle of 200 f/2.0 vs 300 f/2.8 goes also to the FF combination with a clear margin => 3:0 for FF

I was not aware that the situation is that clear - for me the perceivable quality win was visible in the prints I did but it looks even worse for the smaller format.

I like the 200 vs 300 most - it is in fact like night and day and having seen that I can't imagine anyone really favoring the smaller format for image quality reasons.

Considering the price it is also hard to believe that one would want the smaller format since the 5D II is so cheap thee days compare to the investment in good glass.

The 85 f/1.2 so almost double the price of the 135 f/2.0 - the two zooms are identical in price and the 200 and 300 are far beyound any discussion - you would not really start fighting about the last cent when you consider either of these lenses.

I was fully right that image quality wise there is no substitute of the compromise Full Frame. You can go bigger - but then you loose AF (which is o.k. for me since I hardly use it anyhow) but you also loose some focal lengths (which is more a kind of challenge) but it is also doable - the only thing that prevents me personally form using medium format digital is the price and there I am fully aware that I am too poor to buy a 50 k USD gear and I admit that I would like to be able to afford it - unfortunately my income is limited and I am forced to go for a compromise

But the compromise is a very easy one to accept when I see how big the compromise for the crop format would be - the 200 vs the 300 was eye opening for me.

the difference is bigger then going from the 100-400 at 300 and f/5.65 vs the 300 f/2.8 wide open


Or let's put it in another perspective - the 7D plus the fantastic 200 f/2.0 is as bad as the 100-400 at 300 mm on a FF (which is again fully in line with the photo zone mtf50 charts - so it fully translates into real world results)


interesting read for me

-- hide signature --

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R III Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 ASPH Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow