Canon EF 70-200 2.8L USM IS lens, is collar/hood included?

[jhankins]

Just ordered the EF 70-200 2.8L USM IS lens from BH-photo along with some other goodies (new tripod and bag), but just had a thought. I always assumed the collar came with the lens as well as the lens hood. Can someone tell me as if not, I need to order the collar now. (I'll need part numbers). I plan on using the lens next Friday August 9th and I would be bummed if it didn't come with it and I didn't have it. BHphoto is already closed so I can't ask them at the moment.

Thanks!

(PS, and yes, I can't wait!)

:?:

[Radtech1]

Yes, it does, but see my threads before you buy. Dont want you to be disappointed.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34235&highlight=

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34254&highlight=

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34315&highlight=

[jhankins]

Thanks for the links, I'm interested if you were able to verify after swapping out the lens?

[Radtech1]

Thanks for the links, I'm interested if you were able to verify after swapping out the lens?

I got a new lens and repeated the comparisons. There was no change between a the first and second L lens. Both were no sharper than my 28 - 135, and under some shooting conditions, they were less sharp. When I would magnify to individual pixel resolution, my 28-135 gives me 3 transitional pixels between two adjacent areas just about anywhere in the frame. (White area | Line of light grey pixels | Line of grey pixels | Line of dark grey pixels | Black area.) This - to my dismay - was the same performance as the 70-200L.

For 1700 plus change I expected Sharper than a Serpent's Tooth sharp. In other words, I wanted 1 transitional pixel, AT MOST, not three.

I decided that if the L lens was not going to give that to me, I would keep my 28-135 and get something a bit more usable. Samys would not refund my money, but offered me a store credit. I am on the waiting list for the 70 - 300 DO, smaller, lighter and (I believe) a much better handheld lens than the 70-200L.

(That 70-200L is a BIG HEAVY MUTHA - and the IS and added light gathering of the f2.8 aperture is absolutely needed to compensate for the weight of that beastie.)

I would also like to say **YES, I KNOW this was not a scientific test** as some have complained. But, the thing of it is, I don't do all my shooting in a lab. I tried using subjects that I might actually shoot - in order to get a "real world" evaluation. Some have also complained that I did not shoot the 70-200 at f2.8, presumably, that is the best focus. Well, that is true - I only shot at apertures and focal lengths that BOTH lenses accommodate. That meant above f4 and between 70mm (shortest on the L) and 135mm (longest on my original lens). This was the only way to get an apples to apples comparison.

Good luck, I hope that your experience is better than mine. Post some comparison shots if you have a lens that duplicates a portion of the range on your new 70-200.

Rad

[cmattdvc]

Spend the money, It blows away every lens that we've EVER had.
It is very expensive, but I have been blown away by it.

Matt

[jhankins]

I hope to enjoy it, I've borrowed a friends non IS 70-200 2.8L and really enjoyed it. I'm often in lowlight conditions and the 200mm range is a nice field of view coupled with it's speed. I'm looking forward to shooting with it and hope to have a better experience. I don't have a comparable as yet IS lens. And I don't expect to purchase another in the near future, my next purchase will be the 24-70 and then the 17-35, then the Mark II once things shake out a bit with it. Right now glass is my priority.

[Jesper]

I got a new lens and repeated the comparisons. There was no change between a the first and second L lens. Both were no sharper than my 28 - 135, and under some shooting conditions, they were less sharp. When I would magnify to individual pixel resolution, my 28-135 gives me 3 transitional pixels between two adjacent areas just about anywhere in the frame. (White area | Line of light grey pixels | Line of grey pixels | Line of dark grey pixels | Black area.) This - to my dismay - was the same performance as the 70-200L.

For 1700 plus change I expected Sharper than a Serpent's Tooth sharp. In other words, I wanted 1 transitional pixel, AT MOST, not three.

Rad, you know that the sensors of most digital cameras have the pixels on the sensor laid out in a Bayer pattern (http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/digital_3.htm). Each pixel does not record all three colours (red, green, blue), but just one colour. In for example a 6 MP Bayer pattern sensor, there are 1.5 million red, 1.5 million blue and 3 million green pixels.

To make a useful RGB image out of the raw sensor data, for each pixel the missing colours are interpolated from neighbouring pixels. So for a green pixel, the red and blue components are generated by interpolating the values of the surrounding red and blue pixels, etc.

A consequence of the Bayer layout is that the spatial resolution is lower than 1 pixel. So you shouldn't expect to see "white pixel | black pixel | white pixel" when you're using a camera with a Bayer sensor. In addition to the Bayer sensor, most digital cameras also have a low-pass filter in front of the sensor to avoid aliasing and moiré.

[Radtech1]

Rad, you know that the sensors of most digital cameras have the pixels on the sensor laid out in a Bayer pattern (http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/digital_3.htm). Each pixel does not record all three colours (red, green, blue), but just one colour.
A consequence of the Bayer layout is that the spatial resolution is lower than 1 pixel.

Interesing link, thank you. I knew of the 2:1:1 ratio, but I did not know of the specifics of the layout.

Which all goes to reinforce the fact that the correct answer is "NO" to anyone asking "I own a 10D or D300 and I want a shap lens. Should spend $1700 dollars for the 70-200 2.8L" - Because the sensitivity of the lens is greater than the sensitivity of the camera.

[Mike H]

jh,

If you are concerned about whether you've bought a quality lens, try the "lens test" link below. It's from this week's Democratic National Convention. The people who demand the best and can afford it almost all use L lenses.

The jury is in: L glass rules the photographic world.

Enjoy your superb new lens. :D

Mike H

http://www.pbase.com/image/31909200

[Sketcher]

jh,

If you are concerned about whether you've bought a quality lens, try the "lens test" link below. It's from this week's Democratic National Convention. The people who demand the best and can afford it almost all use L lenses.

The jury is in: L glass rules the photographic world.

Enjoy your superb new lens. :D

Mike H

http://www.pbase.com/image/31909200

I like the irony of the EXIF on that photo ;)

[Belmondo]

jh,

If you are concerned about whether you've bought a quality lens, try the "lens test" link below. It's from this week's Democratic National Convention. The people who demand the best and can afford it almost all use L lenses.

The jury is in: L glass rules the photographic world.

Enjoy your superb new lens. :D

Mike H

http://www.pbase.com/image/31909200

Non-Canon people have to hate that picture. I will say that there are at least 22 lenses in that shot that are better than anything I currently own, and I see that as a challenge to be met head-on. This year I get the 600, even if it costs my marriage. You just never know when you're going to find youself at a political convention, you know.

[jhankins]

I look forward to a long relationship with Canon and trust they will continue to lead and continuously improve on their products which enables me to improve on mine.

I will attempt to provide some example shots once I've received the lens. I expect to receive it Tuesday next week and will be traveling out of town the following week and will bring it along for the ride.

Thanks everyone for the great feedback from both sides of the fence. That's what makes this forum great!

Regards,

Jim

[Jesper]

Rad, you know that the sensors of most digital cameras have the pixels on the sensor laid out in a Bayer pattern (http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/digital_3.htm). Each pixel does not record all three colours (red, green, blue), but just one colour.
A consequence of the Bayer layout is that the spatial resolution is lower than 1 pixel.

Interesing link, thank you. I knew of the 2:1:1 ratio, but I did not know of the specifics of the layout.

Which all goes to reinforce the fact that the correct answer is "NO" to anyone asking "I own a 10D or D300 and I want a shap lens. Should spend $1700 dollars for the 70-200 2.8L" - Because the sensitivity of the lens is greater than the sensitivity of the camera.

The sharpest L lenses have more resolving power than the sensor of a 10D or 300D. However, if you look at the 1Ds for example - its resolution is so high that it is very critical with lenses, and it even shows the flaws in the sharpest L lenses.

Note that lenses are an investment, much more than the camera body - maybe you'll buy a 20 MP DSLR in 5 years or so, and then you'll be glad you'll have good lenses. L lenses keep their value much more than camera bodies.

[ijohnson]

Rad, you know that the sensors of most digital cameras have the pixels on the sensor laid out in a Bayer pattern (http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/digital_3.htm). Each pixel does not record all three colours (red, green, blue), but just one colour.
A consequence of the Bayer layout is that the spatial resolution is lower than 1 pixel.

Interesing link, thank you. I knew of the 2:1:1 ratio, but I did not know of the specifics of the layout.

Which all goes to reinforce the fact that the correct answer is "NO" to anyone asking "I own a 10D or D300 and I want a shap lens. Should spend $1700 dollars for the 70-200 2.8L" - Because the sensitivity of the lens is greater than the sensitivity of the camera.

The sharpest L lenses have more resolving power than the sensor of a 10D or 300D. However, if you look at the 1Ds for example - its resolution is so high that it is very critical with lenses, and it even shows the flaws in the sharpest L lenses.

Note that lenses are an investment, much more than the camera body - maybe you'll buy a 20 MP DSLR in 5 years or so, and then you'll be glad you'll have good lenses. L lenses keep their value much more than camera bodies.

Well said. I have the 70-200 2.8L and whether it out-resolves my camera or not, it kicks the crap out of my 28-135 in every respect and I will own it as long as I own a camera so it is one of my best investments (education is up there somewhere).