Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 10 May 2006 (Wednesday) 09:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

 
twotimer
Senior Member
252 posts
Joined Oct 2005
     
Jul 16, 2006 17:21 |  #31

Taken in Grand Bend Ontario this March.

Gerhard

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Treat ­ me ­ like ­ a ­ tourist
Goldmember
Avatar
1,611 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
Location: North Wales
     
Jul 16, 2006 17:51 |  #32

Thank you all for contributing. I am sold i think, lol. I was hesitant before i set this thread up, all i heard was how great the IS version is, it blocks out the great performance of the non IS that you have proven here, wait does that make sense? too many Pimms me thinks. Anyway i hope you keep posting, if it continues long enough i will be albe to post my shots when the lens arrives, wont be able to order it for another week though.
Anyone have any negative experience using a 2x converter with a 1.6 crop body?


Facebook (external link)
Gear List
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
     
Jul 16, 2006 17:53 as a reply to  @ Treat me like a tourist's post |  #33

Treat me like a tourist wrote:
Thank you all for contributing. I am sold i think, lol. I was hesitant before i set this thread up, all i heard was how great the IS version is, it blocks out the great performance of the non IS that you have proven here, wait does that make sense? too many Pimms me thinks. Anyway i hope you keep posting, if it continues long enough i will be albe to post my shots when the lens arrives, wont be able to order it for another week though.
Anyone have any negative experience using a 2x converter with a 1.6 crop body?

It'll work with 2x. But don't expect as crystal clear results. I'd consider another lens if the 2x tc will be on the lens more than 50% of the time.


Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 218
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Jul 16, 2006 17:57 |  #34

The hummingbird shot with 1.4x and 2x TCs (which isn't reflected in the EXIF, BTW) was using AF at an effective aperture of f/8. I get AF with that combo on both the 5D and 20D. It seems the Tamron just passes through the Canon's info without adding its own.


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Seefutlung
Goldmember
Avatar
3,262 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
     
Jul 16, 2006 18:56 as a reply to  @ Treat me like a tourist's post |  #35

Treat me like a tourist wrote:
Thank you all for contributing. I am sold i think, lol. I was hesitant before i set this thread up, all i heard was how great the IS version is, it blocks out the great performance of the non IS that you have proven here, wait does that make sense? too many Pimms me thinks. Anyway i hope you keep posting, if it continues long enough i will be albe to post my shots when the lens arrives, wont be able to order it for another week though.
Anyone have any negative experience using a 2x converter with a 1.6 crop body?

Photozone has performed resolution (sharpness) tests on both the IS and non-IS 70-200. The Non-IS, by testing, is sharper than the IS. So, IS is handy some-of-the-time, but I rather had the little extra sharpness all the time. And, since most of my shots/usage of the 70-200 are of action/sports ... IS doesn't do me much good. It all depends on what you shoot. IS is handy for those shots when a tripod isn't around or practical ... but a tripod beats IS for sharpness.


- Unsharp At Any Speed -
LAShooters (external link) for SoCal shooting
www.garyayala.smugmug.​com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
     
Jul 16, 2006 19:00 as a reply to  @ Seefutlung's post |  #36

Seefutlung wrote:
Photozone has performed resolution (sharpness) tests on both the IS and non-IS 70-200. The Non-IS, by testing, is sharper than the IS. So, IS is handy some-of-the-time, but I rather had the little extra sharpness all the time. And, since most of my shots/usage of the 70-200 are of action/sports ... IS doesn't do me much good. It all depends on what you shoot. IS is handy for those shots when a tripod isn't around or practical ... but a tripod beats IS for sharpness.

The sharpness is so minimal though. You'd likely see more lens to lens variation than anything. I doubt most people would even notice the difference with a test against the two without each being labeled. And since Canon's always tend to produce images that are on the soft side, you are going to end up sharpening anyway, whether it is the IS or non-IS.

And Jon made a good point. It does correct handshake blur, even when you are at higher shutter speeds.

For you it works, for other people IS works. Only the person who knows what they are shooting will know which is better. The sharpness issue is not relevant compared to the weight, cost, things you shoot elements.

Obviously, buy what you can afford without any financial problems occuring from your buy.


Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lmelendez
Senior Member
815 posts
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Miami, FL
     
Jul 17, 2006 09:03 as a reply to  @ grego's post |  #37

All of them with a 20D and 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS)

Nature:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​9-med.jpg (external link)
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_012​6-med.jpg (external link)
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​8-med.jpg (external link)

People:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_336​0-med.jpg (external link)
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_037​7-med.jpg (external link)

Great lens..... 2 out of 50 times I have wished to have IS.... but 2 out of 50 times doesn't justify the $500 in my particular case

Leo.


http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
websurfer
Member
158 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Denmark
     
Jul 17, 2006 10:02 as a reply to  @ Seefutlung's post |  #38

Seefutlung wrote:
Photozone has performed resolution (sharpness) tests on both the IS and non-IS 70-200. The Non-IS, by testing, is sharper than the IS. So, IS is handy some-of-the-time, but I rather had the little extra sharpness all the time. And, since most of my shots/usage of the 70-200 are of action/sports ... IS doesn't do me much good. It all depends on what you shoot. IS is handy for those shots when a tripod isn't around or practical ... but a tripod beats IS for sharpness.

Update - Photozone.de:

Maybe the difference between the IS ver. and non-IS is only very small cos Klaus on Photozone.de is going to make new reviews of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS and of the Canon EF 100-400 L because he think, that the copies, which he has tested, were substandard copies. New reviews will follow in a short time.
Link. (external link)


Canon 50D / EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 / EF 17-40 f4 L / EF 35 f2 / EF 50 f1.4 / EF 85 f1.8 / EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS/ EF 400 f5.6 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PalmBayFlo
Senior Member
Avatar
383 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: Lindenhurst, NY
     
Jul 17, 2006 14:59 as a reply to  @ lmelendez's post |  #39

lmelendez wrote:
All of them with a 20D and 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS)

Nature:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​9-med.jpg (external link)
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_012​6-med.jpg (external link)
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​8-med.jpg (external link)

People:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_336​0-med.jpg (external link)
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_037​7-med.jpg (external link)

Great lens..... 2 out of 50 times I have wished to have IS.... but 2 out of 50 times doesn't justify the $500 in my particular case

Leo.

Beautiful shots Leo...I especially loved the second one in the People category. Did you run any particular action with that? Love the pastel colors!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lord_Malone
Cream of the Manpanties.....​... Inventor Great POTN Photo Book
Avatar
7,684 posts
Joined Oct 2005
     
Jul 17, 2006 15:11 |  #40

I just posted this in the "bokeh" thread...

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

~Spaceships Don't Come Equipped With Rear View Mirrors~
http://www.myspace.com​/chocolate_thai (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PAFC2004
Goldmember
Avatar
1,084 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Adelaide, Australia
     
Sep 28, 2006 12:13 as a reply to  @ Lord_Malone's post |  #41

The bokeh in the last image is amazing. No PP?


Canon 5D MKii |Canon 350D | EF 17-40L | EF 70-200 2.8L | 580EX II | 430EX | EF 1.4x T/C II | EF 50 1.8II | Q6600 + 8800 Ultra

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Avatar
10,596 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
     
Sep 28, 2006 18:18 |  #42

I'm not sure I get these, "show me your best shots from a XXXXX lens" threads.
Unless you have something to compare it to how are processed and sharpened images of much value?
Arguably the 70-200 f2.8L is one of the sharpest zoom that Canon makes and it's optics are not really questionable at this point as the lens has been out for so long.

I have this lens and think it's a great deal too, but I'm just not sure if these types of threads are really helpful.

Flame suit, ON!!!


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 28, 2006 18:27 |  #43

Tee Why wrote in post #2050603 (external link)
I'm not sure I get these, "show me your best shots from a XXXXX lens" threads.
Unless you have something to compare it to how are processed and sharpened images of much value?
Arguably the 70-200 f2.8L is one of the sharpest zoom that Canon makes and it's optics are not really questionable at this point as the lens has been out for so long.

I have this lens and think it's a great deal too, but I'm just not sure if these types of threads are really helpful.

Flame suit, ON!!!


I agree. Even "straight from RAW" crops are pointless...there are different RAW softwares and different settings that mean different things.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
In2Photos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
19,808 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Near Charlotte, NC.
     
Sep 28, 2006 18:42 |  #44

Tee Why wrote in post #2050603 (external link)
I'm not sure I get these, "show me your best shots from a XXXXX lens" threads.
Unless you have something to compare it to how are processed and sharpened images of much value?
Arguably the 70-200 f2.8L is one of the sharpest zoom that Canon makes and it's optics are not really questionable at this point as the lens has been out for so long.

I have this lens and think it's a great deal too, but I'm just not sure if these types of threads are really helpful.

Flame suit, ON!!!

Seen any of these threads for a Quantarray lens? How about a Canon 55-200? Perhaps people like to see what others shoot with the lens. Or perhaps characterisitics of the lens, like REALLY REALLY bad CA will show on a 800 pixel image, or how the bokeh looks. The kit lens is said to be a horrible lens but the thread for that has proved that it CAN be a useful lens that creates beautiful images.


Mike, The Keeper of the Archive

Current Gear and Feedback| My Pbase Galleryexternal link | mdsportsphoto.comexternal linkhttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=835433

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 28, 2006 18:54 |  #45

In2Photos wrote in post #2050684 (external link)
Seen any of these threads for a Quantarray lens? How about a Canon 55-200? Perhaps people like to see what others shoot with the lens. Or perhaps characterisitics of the lens, like REALLY REALLY bad CA will show on a 800 pixel image, or how the bokeh looks. The kit lens is said to be a horrible lens but the thread for that has proved that it CAN be a useful lens that creates beautiful images.

Yeah, at small sizes. Kinda backs up Tee's point.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

666,690 views & 291 likes for this thread
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is fishesman
691 guests, 414 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.