Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 2.8 IS vs higher iso +f/4 IS version

Go to last post
S

Seaclam

Senior Member
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I've had this lens for years and have never been happy with it's sharpness, especially on the long end. It's pretty much a boat anchor these days. I'm in the group who belives and hopes this lens gets updated. Now, when you look at The Digital Picture site's chart comparision between it and the f/4 IS version, at least to me, throughout the entire range, especially at 200mm the f/4 IS version smokes the f/2.8 IS version hands down all the way up to f/11. The f/4 IS version is much sharper wide open at f/4 than even the 2.8 IS stopped down to f/4, regardless of focal length. To my eyes, I would call the level of difference in sharpness between the two to be staggering. I realize this lens is a pro workhorse. I'm considering getting another 70-200, as I love the range of the lens. As I have the 5D2, and in general the rather clean(especially compared to film days) high iso of todays DSLR's, I'm thinking the f/4 IS version is the way to go. I'll wait and see if Canon updates the 2.8 IS version of the lens by the end of the year, even early into next year, but the IQ of the f/4 IS looks pretty darn incredible. Any thoughts....

--

The only true wisdom I have to impart is to say.....get out there and shoot! Anything else is subject to interpretation.
 
My 70-200/2.8L IS is diffraction-limited by f4. It's insanely sharp. It's the sharpest lens I own.

I had an opportunity to shoot a wedding my my friend recently. He has a 70-200/4L IS, I have a 70-200/2.8L IS. He shot on a 40D, I shot on my 20D. All shots were in raw. I have thousands of shots in total and I'm processing them all. I can't really tell the difference between them except that my shots are a little less noisy since I used a stop lower ISO due to the faster aperture.

Here's a processed 100% crop from mine at f2.8.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/70-200%20110mm%20f2.8%20sharpened.jpg

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I agree with Lee that the f/2.8 IS is no slouch against the f/4 IS in real world shots. I've shot with my brother's f/4 version, and I do envy the weight (or the lacking of it.) Having said that, I just can't imagine myself buying the f/4 lens, as I shoot f/2.8 on my zoom more than any other apertures combined.

Maybe Lee has a more stellar copy than mine, as I can definitely see my 85mm f/1.8 prime (which Lee has one as well) easily sharper than the zoom. The OP's description, however, does not sound like a normal copy at all.

--
_ _
| | | \ / |
| \ | | | | o
 
This is a processed 100% crop from the 70-200/2.8L IS set at 200mm and f4.5 but with stacked 1.4x TCs attached (so, that's 400mm and f9). It's taken panning, obviously, at 1 stop slower than 1/f. The catch is, I was carrying two hot dogs in my left hand during the flyby so I just picked up the camera/lens/TC combo by the grip with one hand, focused with my thumb and fired. I love this lens!



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ljfinger said:
This is a processed 100% crop from the 70-200/2.8L IS set at 200mm and f4.5 but with stacked 1.4x TCs attached (so, that's 400mm and f9). It's taken panning, obviously, at 1 stop slower than 1/f. The catch is, I was carrying two hot dogs in my left hand during the flyby so I just picked up the camera/lens/TC combo by the grip with one hand, focused with my thumb and fired. I love this lens!

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
--When I firs opened this I thought no way is that shot as good as the 4 but with the stacked TC I think this is a great shot

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.
 
Did you know that the the EF 70-200 f2.8 lens soft when using it with APS-C crop cameras?
 
if you do a search you should see my sample photos from the f/2.8 non-IS vs f/4 IS at the center and edges at 200mm.

at 200mm the f/4 IS did do better, especially at the edges of FF but the difference was not what i'd call staggering. Granted the 2.8 non-IS is a little crisper than the IS but I still would be surprised to call it a staggering difference.

maybe your copy is a little bit bad or maybe i'm just being less picky in this case

in case you can't easily track down the post I made (it can be tricky to hunt down specific postings) here is a link to the gallery where I stored the test images (make sure to look at original size and use info tool to figure out what is what):
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/8475314_BAP6G/1/557274929_fujyi

actually i noticed that I already labelled the photos underneath

it shows around 100mm performance and 200mm at f/4 and f/5.6 at the center and far corner for both lenses
Seaclam said:
I've had this lens for years and have never been happy with it's sharpness, especially on the long end. It's pretty much a boat anchor these days. I'm in the group who belives and hopes this lens gets updated. Now, when you look at The Digital Picture site's chart comparision between it and the f/4 IS version, at least to me, throughout the entire range, especially at 200mm the f/4 IS version smokes the f/2.8 IS version hands down all the way up to f/11. The f/4 IS version is much sharper wide open at f/4 than even the 2.8 IS stopped down to f/4, regardless of focal length. To my eyes, I would call the level of difference in sharpness between the two to be staggering. I realize this lens is a pro workhorse. I'm considering getting another 70-200, as I love the range of the lens. As I have the 5D2, and in general the rather clean(especially compared to film days) high iso of todays DSLR's, I'm thinking the f/4 IS version is the way to go. I'll wait and see if Canon updates the 2.8 IS version of the lens by the end of the year, even early into next year, but the IQ of the f/4 IS looks pretty darn incredible. Any thoughts....

--

The only true wisdom I have to impart is to say.....get out there and shoot! Anything else is subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
 
The OP is satisfies with his own copy.
He is referring to the test results on posted on the popular:
the-digital-picture dot com
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.
 
If you really have that bad of a copy of the 70-200 F2.8 then by all means get rid of it, Mine is great and I have no issues with sharpness even at F2.8. Maybe you could post some samples I would like to see what you consider soft....
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
I hadn't noticed which site you were refering to with the tests. I've seen this site and this comparison many times and I can say they probably got the worst copy ever made. I have no Idea why that copy was never re done....
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
Taikonaut said:
Did you know that the the EF 70-200 f2.8 lens soft when using it with APS-C crop cameras?
Click to expand...
It's not soft even on APS-C. Here is a sample from mine at 200mm, f2.8 on 20D. The worse case scenario?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top