Canon's sleeper

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

1962sg wrote:

One of the two sharpest lenses I've ever seen. Sharper, even, than the much vaunted 70-200 F:2.8 IS USM. This lens easily has the best bokeh I've ever seen. USM motor is fast and can have the stroke shortened for even faster focusing. The only thing I wish is that Canon would include the $200 tripod mount with the lens. Fortunately the tripod mount from the 70-200 F:4 USM (non-IS) will fit. Absolutely amazing lens for well under $1000.

It don't beat the 70-200f2.8L IS II at 200mms, at any setting. You say its one of two of the sharpest lenses you've ever seen. How many have you seen?

Based on DxOMark scores it can easily be true depending on what you are looking for, body used, and position of subject in the frame. The question may not be how many lenses have you seen but how many copies of the same lens have you seen. Because a good copy of either should be difficult to tell apart, and a better copy of one, would easily beat a poor copy of the other.

DxOMark overall says the 200mm f2.8 prime has the better transmission and vignetting scores, it is not quite up to scratch wide open dead center, but its midframe sharpness is excellent. At f4 the f200 mm f2.8 prime actually pulls ahead at midframe sharpness (the zoom is always ahead in dead center).

The Nikon 58mm 1.4 is another lens that is quite good dead center but pretty poor in mid-frame. This is why it DxOMark rating is not that high even though arguably its 'sharpness' score on the summary does a bit better. Likewise the 70-200 f2.8 IS II does *much* better on the 'sharpness' score due to better dead-center performance, but its DxOMark rating is not significantly different over various bodies.

But online tests aside, I'd have to agree its a sleeper lens...like the 85mm and 100mm are siblings if you look at the release date and build of the 200mm f2.8 II prime its sibling is the commonly more expensive and extremely real-regarded 135mm f2. But the 200mm f2.8 II prime is to the 135 f2 as is the 100mm f2 is to the 85mm f1.8. So if 200 mm is the focal length you desire...its an incredible value.

I think the biggest thing compared to the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is the lack of flourite coating (like the 135mm f2) in which case it doesn't have top-notch CA/contrast especially wide open in comparison.  After some PP or CA corrections however it would be very difficult to tell apart I'd bet.