Is the 70-200 2.8 L IS sharp? Oh Yea!

[jbradc]

Well I finally got a chance to use my new 70-200 2.8 L IS. After doing a lot of research about the IS vs Non-IS version of this lens, I decided to get the IS version even though I had read in some posts that it was not as sharp as the Non-IS version.
Below is a photo I took today with my 1D Mark II and this lens. Below that is a 100% crop. All I did in PS CS was adjust levels and resize the first photo to fit your screen :-) .
ISO 50, F2.8 @ 200mm.

http://www.sevenhillsphotography.com/shots/190405_A1Q0007_small.jpg

http://www.sevenhillsphotography.com/shots/190405_A1Q0007_crop.jpg

Now that is sharp :shock:

[picture-this]

It's really good around the kitchen for cutting tomatoes.

[cactusclay]

Yea, that looks sharp. I miss iso 50.

[goldstrikn]

Ohhhhh my eyes.....;) Very sharp indeed. Nice, now I have to go back to work overtime to get this lens.

[raylks]

One of the sharpest zoom lens of Canon!

[DIGITAL PHOTO GUY]

Now that's what I'm talkin about, TACK SHARP! Congrats on your lens and you made the right decision, I know it was hard to decide, but once you commit to this lens, you know you made the right choice....I know I did!

[TTP]

Excellent Sharpness!
Actually Outstanding..

[tim]

This lens is DEFINITELY on my list of things to get. I just have to find an excuse to buy it now ;) Luckily I have no-one to try and sneek it past, I would just hate to buy a lens this expensive I don't really use much!

[picture-this]

It's really useable, 200mm doesn't really reel things in so much.

[LadyHawk]

Beautiful and sharp as a tack. Did you shoot this in jpeg or raw?

[jfred]

I'm hoping to find one for a good price since work has sent me to the US for 2 weeks. Fingers crossed!

Happy shooting with the new lens

[jbradc]

Beautiful and sharp as a tack. Did you shoot this in jpeg or raw?
I shoot RAW just about all the time. This was shot in RAW and converted to JPEG in PS CS.

[xc611]

Compare to 18-55, yes it's sharp!

Compare to 135/2L, no, not even close !

[GyRob]

would you get the same result from a 20d or does the 1dm2 add something to the sharpness ?
Rob

[jbradc]

Compare to 18-55, yes it's sharp!

Compare to 135/2L, no, not even close !
Well you are comparing a zoom to prime. My point is that of the 3 70-200 L's Canon offers the 2.8 IS is plenty sharp. I sold my 70-200 F4 L to get this lens and after some of the posts I had read I was a little concerned. But as you can see, the lens is sharp. I have never used the 135 F2 L but it is on my wish list ;)

[xc611]

I have both, however after I got my 135/2L (I was stuned by its sharpness) , I never even touched the 70-200 again. Sad.

[LadyHawk]

Well you are comparing a zoom to prime. My point is that of the 3 70-200 L's Canon offers the 2.8 IS is plenty sharp.

Is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS considered to be less sharp lens (other than for camera shake)? I hope not!

[jbradc]

Is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS considered to be less sharp lens (other than for camera shake)? I hope not!
No, not at all. I had read several posts that said the non-IS version is sharper. That is why I was so thrilled to see just how sharp this lens (IS version) is.

[LadyHawk]

No, not at all. I had read several posts that said the non-IS version is sharper. That is why I was so thrilled to see just how sharp this lens (IS version) is.

Thanks, jbradc. Still learning, but if I can create pictures as nice as this one I'll be very happy.