70-200 L... IS vs 2.8 vs 4.0

[DocFrankenstein]

IS seems to be the "best" lens, but somebody mentioned that 4.0 is more sharp?

Do you know any comparisons done?

[Mike H]

IS seems to be the "best" lens, but somebody mentioned that 4.0 is more sharp?

Do you know any comparisons done?

Doc, do a thread search. I remember that someone actually did a comparison. Maybe Drisley?? I did a search and can't find it.

At any rate, I've read the Photodo.com ratings on these lenses and lots of threads on them. They are all so sharp that I can't imagine people being unhappy with any of them on the grounds that they aren't sharp enough. :D

Mike H

[Belmondo]

I'm not sure I've ever read that the f/4.0 was sharper. I do believe it's as sharp, so if you can live with the loss of one f/stop, it's a fantastic bargain. I have both, and actually prefer the f/4.0 just because of the size/weight issue.

But that's just me.

[DaveG]

IS seems to be the "best" lens, but somebody mentioned that 4.0 is more sharp?

Do you know any comparisons done?

My bet is that the f4 is sharper than the 2.8 (and I mean at f5.6 not f2.8 or f4). To get to f2.8 the designers had to make compromises that they didn't have to make with the f4, so it should be sharper.

But define sharpness? If I shoot on a monopod at 1/60 of a second at f4 or 1/125 with f2.8 which image is NOW going to be sharper? And that's the real issue. If you are only going to use this lens under bright conditions save your money and back and buy the cheaper, lighter and sharper f4. But soon as you think about darker situations then the VERY SLIGHTLY LESS SHARP f2.8 is the gun you need.

If it means anything I bought the 2.8 and it's very sharp in real life. But I would be surprised if the f4 didn't surpass it on an optical bench.

[roanjohn]

They are all sharp.

The f4 is cheaper and more easy to handhold all day.

The f2.8 is heavier but will reward you with muscular growth and a healthy cardiovascular system.

As they say, no pain, no gain.

Ro1

[DocFrankenstein]

They are all sharp.

The f4 is cheaper and more easy to handhold all day.

The f2.8 is heavier but will give reward you with muscular growth and a healthy cardiovascular system.
The weight of my wallet will compensate :lol:

[ijohnson]

If I understand correctly, both lenses outresolve the sensor on the 10d, not sure about the MkII.

So if you have a 10D this is a worthless point.

[Cadenza]

But.... as far as 70-200s go, would you get the
Canon f4L or the premium model Sigma 2.8?
They're about the same price.

[Persian-Rice]

Doc, I was the one who mentioned that it was sharper.

It was result of a head to head comparison done on this forum.

http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/Photonumerique/sujet-1015-1.htm

It's in french so use http://babelfish.altavista.com to translate the whole page in a single shot.

At 200MM, with full crop examples, the F4 almost blew the IS out of the water. But the IS was amazing as well................

Cadenza, I don't think you can really compare a Canon L to any other lens..................thats my opinion though. The sigma is a little more versatile as it as a wider aperture, but the optics on the F4 are simply stunning, its really up to you to see which one is more important for your needs.

Cheers.

[DocFrankenstein]

Hmm... I think I'll get the f/4 after all

It's not as pricey, lighter and is sharper at the working end.