Sharp but keep that speed up

victoria1 wrote:

Had the lens for a week, taken lots of shots and thought I'd share some thoughts. I shoot with a 6D, so full frame, and am an unregenerate pixel peeper, so my comments are based on 100% magnification. On full screen, this lens looks really good at any aperture. It's sharper than the 24-105, less sharp in the centre than the 24-70 f2.8 Mkii and much like the 70-200 f/4 IS. But IS is lovely.

The photozone.de analysis is spot on, so do have a read.

Sharpness at 2.8 can be very good, but at 3.5, it's noticeably sharper and the bokeh is very similar to 2.8. I've taken some corkers at 2.8 and 2.8 means the highest shutter speeds at lowest ISO, which is a good thing. I have found that static subjects, like architectural features, or well lit full face portraits seem consistently sharper at 2.8 than street scenes with moving subjects or people in the shade of awnings, but I think the answer is to keep the shutter speed up. At least 1\250 in bright light, but faster is better for street scenes with moving people or in dimmer light. 1/800 - 1/4000. Because it needs high shutter speeds, it is an outdoor lens, hand held.

I usually use auto ISO bit it isn't so reliable with this lens as it underestimates shake, so I have had to become more conscious of ISO settings. Where ISO 100 might get you a speed of 1/250 at f2.8, this drops significantly at f3.5 and the shot is soft, so I'd keep ISO at 200-400 during the day so that you don't have to worry about slow shutter speeds when you stop up. Full frame bodies handle ISO 400 very well. You will have to be more aware of shutter speeds with this lens, if, like me, you are used to image stabilised lenses.

I find this a slightly cooler lens than my 135 f2, which is a terrific lens right from f2. In fact, if you didn't need the added reach, but wanted something a little longer than your 24-105 or 24-70, the 135 is brilliant: contrasty, nicely saturated, easier to hand hold and still get sharp shots. But I wanted the reach and size of the 200 for candid travel shots and my 70-200 f/4 IS hardly gets used apart from the occasional wedding. Too big and conspicuous.

Hope this helps you decided whether this is the kind of lens you need.

...it's in need of an update in a big way, namely, rounded aperture blades, improved flare resistant coatings, and, of course, IS.

While I've no complaints about its sharpness, I would like an update sharp enough to be able to take at least a 1.4x TC with negligible degradation, and, preferably, a 2x TC with negligible degradation.

That would give me a 200 / 2.8L IS, 300 / 4L IS, and 400 / 5.6L IS in a relatively small and light package.