The EF 70-200 lenses beat everything, no matter brand?

[AmateurX]

I heard some stated that the EF 70-200mm lenses from Canon beat everything that all the other DSLR brands has to offer in both IQ and price in this range. Is this right?

 

[Jay Adeff]

According to DPReview, the Tamron 70-200 2.8 is actually sharper than the Canon, especially at f/2.8 and 200mm. But the Canon has the advantage of faster focusing and the option of buying an image-stabilized version. The Tamron however, is much less expensive.

 

[007peter]

According to DPReview, the Tamron 70-200 2.8 is actually sharper than
the Canon, especially at f/2.8 and 200mm. But the Canon has the
advantage of faster focusing and the option of buying an
image-stabilized version. The Tamron however, is much less expensive.

But accoding the same same Dpreview Revew, the tamron is NOT RECOMMENDED due to the highly irregular mis-focusing. I have used this lens, and I agree that AF is unreliable. Making it worst is the lack of focusing limiter. Often, when the lens failed to find focus, it rewind all the way back to 70mm and grind all the way back to 200mm, yet still failed to find AF. Had tamron add a focus limiter, it can cut this focus hunt in half. The price is good, but tarmon shouldn't have skip out on the USM/HSM motor and a focus limitor.

Comparing SLRGEAR.COM'S REVIEW OF

Canon 70-200 F4 IS

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon70-200f4is/tloader.htm

Tamron 70-200 F/2.8

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/tamron70-200f28macro/tloader.htm

You can also see the superior sharpness of canon 70-200 F4 IS. The graph is flatter throughout 70mm to 200mm. Where as Tamrons suffer a noticable uneveness, especially so at 135mm.

 

[maiaibing]

I heard some stated that the EF 70-200mm lenses from Canon beat
everything that all the other DSLR brands has to offer in both IQ and
price in this range. Is this right?

70-200 is one of the most popular lens length's and almost all brands have excellent offers in the same range like the SONY 70-200.

Canon is special because it has a very wide offering of 70-200. SONY has only one (a 2.8). Canon has four different models 2.8 or 4, IS or non-IS. Especially the 4 IS stands out as one of the best zooms ever made.

But in reality all the Canon's are pretty close (which says a lot when the comparing to the 4 IS). The internal ranking is more or less agreed to be the following:
4 IS
2.8 non-IS
4 non-IS
2.8 IS

So if Canon go for the one that suits your specific needs the best. If you need 2.8 no 4.0 will ever make the grade.

 

[Thu]

Often, when the lens failed to find focus,
it rewind all the way back to 70mm and grind all the way back to
200mm, yet still failed to find AF.

I've never experienced this with any lens before. Why would the the focusing change the focal length of the lens? Did you have to change it back to the focal length you were trying to originally shoot at after it failed to focus?

 

[Thu]

I heard some stated that the EF 70-200mm lenses from Canon beat
everything that all the other DSLR brands has to offer in both IQ and
price in this range. Is this right?

70-200 is one of the most popular lens length's and almost all brands
have excellent offers in the same range like the SONY 70-200.

Canon is special because it has a very wide offering of 70-200. SONY
has only one (a 2.8). Canon has four different models 2.8 or 4, IS or
non-IS. Especially the 4 IS stands out as one of the best zooms ever
made.

Yeah, my 70-200 F/4 IS is great. I love it. However, the title of "best" in terms of optical quality in this focal range goes to the Leica R zooms, the 70-180mm F/2.8 APO and and 80-200mm F/4.

 

[tom sugnet]

70-200 f/4 IS L has great sharpness, but its bokeh is nothing to write home aboutl, it's ok, but not in the same league of 135 f/2 L or 70-200 f/2.8 L, 200 2.8L, 200 f2 IS L, 300 2.8 IS L.

--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st ,
http://pixel-peeping-tom.deviantart.com

 

[AmateurX]

The lenses that you've mentioned is known to have this creamy and HQ bokeh.

70-200 f/4 IS L has great sharpness, but its bokeh is nothing to
write home aboutl, it's ok, but not in the same league of 135 f/2 L
or 70-200 f/2.8 L, 200 2.8L, 200 f2 IS L, 300 2.8 IS L.

 

[maiaibing]

70-200 f/4 IS L has great sharpness, but its bokeh is nothing to
write home aboutl, it's ok, but not in the same league of 135 f/2 L
or 70-200 f/2.8 L, 200 2.8L, 200 f2 IS L, 300 2.8 IS L.

I trust this is a bad joke. The bokeh character of the 70-200 f/4L leaves nothing to be desired - most people consider it excellent. I suggest you provide an example of what you consider "bad bokeh" as I doubt it compares to the preferences of the majority of shooters..

Very challenging foliage highlights here:



Snowflakes with bright color schemes:



More snow highlights in the background:



Excellent transitional blur:

 

[Andreas Helke]

The four Canon 70-200L lenses are the only Canon zooms with essentially flawless optics with performance on par with good prime lenses. I imagine that you can find similar good 70-200 zooms from other manufacturers. But probably not zooms with other focal lenght ranges.

The Niikon 70-200 is quite a bit better than the Canon when used on a crop camera but suffers from very soft edges when used on a full frame camera. I don´t know the performance details of other manuafcturers 70-200 zooms.

 

[Jay Adeff]

I totally agree that the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is superior. In fact, in every review I've read the 70-200 f/4L IS is considered to be the sharpest 70-200 on the market. The only problem is that it's not f/2.8.

 

[Jay Adeff]

It's not that the Bokeh is bad on the 70-200 f/4L IS. It's just that the background is not out of focus enough to really isolate the subject, at least for many people's tastes. Once you've used a fast prime, like the 135 2.0L wide open, an f/4 lens just doesn't have the same ability to isolate the subject. One of the most amazing lenses is the 200 2.0L IS when shot wide open (great for weddings and portraits), but who can afford it?

 

[bronxbombers]

According to DPReview, the Tamron 70-200 2.8 is actually sharper than
the Canon, especially at f/2.8 and 200mm. But the Canon has the
advantage of faster focusing and the option of buying an
image-stabilized version. The Tamron however, is much less expensive.

but considering that the 70-200 is so often used as an action photography lens the terrible AF kind of rules it out in a large percentage of cases....

 

[Jay Adeff]

I owned the 70-200 2.8L for three years, but once I got a taste for prime lenses, I dumped the zoom like a got potato. I replaced it with the 200 2.8L II and the 100 2.0EF. There is simply no comparison. The 200 is sharper at f/2.8 than the zoom was at f/5.6, and the 100 is sharper wide open than the zoom was at f/4. And don't get me started on the difference in chromatic aberrations...

The four Canon 70-200L lenses are the only Canon zooms with
essentially flawless optics with performance on par with good prime
lenses. I imagine that you can find similar good 70-200 zooms from
other manufacturers. But probably not zooms with other focal lenght
ranges.

The Niikon 70-200 is quite a bit better than the Canon when used on a
crop camera but suffers from very soft edges when used on a full
frame camera. I don´t know the performance details of other
manuafcturers 70-200 zooms.

 

[Rowbear]

The users ( us all ) have put all 4 of Canon's 70-200 offerings in the top 5 of zoom lens from Canon.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27&stype=1&si=&perpage=24&sort=4&cat=27&ppuser=
--
Robert
http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/mes_photos

 

[npoforlife]

have the f4 is it has great bokeh but will agree it cant isolate as much as a f2 lens
--
http://npoforlife.deviantart.com/

 

[rwbaron]

The Canon 70~200f4LIS is probably the sharpest zoom lens in that FL range and will rival and even exceed some primes. The only real weakness of this lens is sharpness at it's minimum focus distance between 135 and 200mm.

A few quotes from reputable testing sites.

From SLR GEAR who also tested the Tamrom:

"It isn't easy to improve on an almost flawless lens like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, unless you add 4-stop Image Stabilization without degrading any of the optical or build qualities. This lens tests and performs as well, or better than, any lens tested recently. It is quite sharp across its entire aperture-focal length spectrum; chromatic aberration, vignetting, and distortion are all quite reasonable; focusing is fast and accurate; the build is L-class; and the new 4-stop image stabilization is downright startling in its effectiveness. The only downside may be the price, which breaks the kilo-buck barrier and is almost double that of the non-IS version. Despite the hefty price though, we expect a lot of non-IS owners will be selling their lenses to upgrade to the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS -- it's that good. (This might mean that we'll see some of the non-IS models appearing on the used market, which would make that model even more of a bargain.) Very few medicines cure "shaky hands" - this one does, and with fantastic optical quality as well!"

and from Photozone:

"Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories. The resolution figures are stunning regardless of the setting. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are nothing to worry about. The build quality is excellent with the new sealing as a another highlight. On top of that the lens now features a image stabilizer with an efficiency equivalent to 4 f-stops (at cost of shutter speed). The only heartbreaking drawback for some is the price tag which increased significantly to a whopping grand - price/performance-wise this is still very sound though."

I own the lens and yes it is fantastic and loses almost nothing by adding the Canon 1.4x. I owned what was previously considered to be one of the sharpest lenses in this range, the older Canon 80~200f2.8L (magic drainpipe) which I swore I would never give up. Well guess what, after owning the f4LIS I sold the drainpipe about a year ago.

If you need more convincing than this I can't help you.

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

 

[maiaibing]

It's not that the Bokeh is bad on the 70-200 f/4L IS. It's just that
the background is not out of focus enough to really isolate the
subject,

Yes, sad that many do not seem to have a clue about the difference between bokeh & DOF and their different effects on the resulting picture.

 

[007peter]

Often, when the lens failed to find focus,
it rewind all the way back to 70mm and grind all the way back to
200mm, yet still failed to find AF.

I've never experienced this with any lens before. Why would the the
focusing change the focal length of the lens?

I didn't describe as well as I should. Both Tamron and Canon 70-200 F4 IS are FIXED Focal lengthed zoom lens, this means their physical demension doesn't change as you zoom from 70mm to 200mm (as it does in typical superzoom that is short and grows long in telephotos). Rather, both lens MOVE the "internal elements" to deliver the 70mm through 200mm focal length you desired.

I was shooting tamron at fixed 200mm focal length (didn't change) when it failed to find autofocus. Then, you can hear the lens moves its internal element from the original 200mm grinding back to 70mm, then grinds back to 200mm, and give up on finding autofocus. This entire process of AF hunt can last as long as 1 minutes to 1:30.

This is as good as I can describe here. I highly suggest you try it out inside a camera store. The tamron is an very impressive lens with fantatic optics. Even my random badly composed photo test shots has that WOW factor. However, the AF mechanic is very poor. At best tamron functions as a portrait lens for relatively slow adults or posed photos. I wouldn't rely on tamron for model walking down the cat walk or a child running toward you playing soccer. For what it is worth, $699 is an outrageous value. However, I can get both f/2.8 and USM/HSM motor by choosing Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM over tamron for just $100 more.

 

[Josh Hunt]

These are all taken with the Canon 28 - 200 2.8 IS

http://joshhunt.smugmug.com/gallery/7820011_mYdwp#506496461_i4Nng
--
Josh
http://www.joshhuntphotos.com