LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive
Thread started 10 May 2006 (Wednesday) 09:29   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
twotimer
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2005
252 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Taken in Grand Bend Ontario this March.

Gerhard

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://mypixel.ca/phot​o/springGB3.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Post #31, Jul 16, 2006 17:21:12




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Treat ­ me ­ like ­ a ­ tourist
Goldmember
Treat me like a tourist's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
1,572 posts
North Wales
[MORE/SHARE]

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?

Post #32, Jul 16, 2006 17:51:57


Blogexternal link
Facebookexternal link
Gear List
Flickrexternal link
Deviantexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
grego's Avatar
Joined May 2005
8,819 posts
UCLA
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #33, Jul 16, 2006 17:53:31 as a reply to Treat me like a tourist's post 1 minute earlier.


Go UCLAexternal link!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.comexternal linkSportsShooterexternal link|Flickrexternal link|

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Moderator

Cocker Spaniel Mod

Jon's Avatar
Joined Jun 2004
68,204 posts
Bethesda, MD USA
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #34, Jul 16, 2006 17:57:09


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
Seefutlung's Avatar
Joined Feb 2006
3,262 posts
SoCal
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #35, Jul 16, 2006 18:56:29 as a reply to Treat me like a tourist's post 1 hour earlier.


- Unsharp At Any Speed -
LAShootersexternal link for SoCal shooting
www.garyayala.smugmug.​comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
grego
Cream of the Crop
grego's Avatar
Joined May 2005
8,819 posts
UCLA
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #36, Jul 16, 2006 19:00:52 as a reply to Seefutlung's post 4 minutes earlier.


Go UCLAexternal link!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.comexternal linkSportsShooterexternal link|Flickrexternal link|

LOG IN TO REPLY
lmelendez
Senior Member
Joined Dec 2002
815 posts
Miami, FL
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Nature:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​9-med.jpgexternal link
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_012​6-med.jpgexternal link
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​8-med.jpgexternal link

People:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_336​0-med.jpgexternal link
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_037​7-med.jpgexternal 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.

Post #37, Jul 17, 2006 09:03:58 as a reply to grego's post 14 hours earlier.


http://www.bluejaygall​ery.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
websurfer
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2006
158 posts
Denmark
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #38, Jul 17, 2006 10:02:38 as a reply to Seefutlung's post 15 hours earlier.


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
PalmBayFlo's Avatar
Joined May 2005
383 posts
Palm Bay, FL
[MORE/SHARE]

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.jpgexternal link
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_012​6-med.jpgexternal link
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/nature/IMG_317​8-med.jpgexternal link

People:
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_336​0-med.jpgexternal link
http://www.bluejaygall​ery.com/people/IMG_037​7-med.jpgexternal 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!

Post #39, Jul 17, 2006 14:59:42 as a reply to lmelendez's post 5 hours earlier.


Flo (Canon 6D - 135L - 40 Pancake - Sony A7II - Leica Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lord_Malone
Cream of the Manpanties........ Inventor Great POTN Photo Book
Lord_Malone's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
7,684 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://img264.imagesha​ck.us/img264/4650/ord2​818hj6.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Post #40, Jul 17, 2006 15:11:48


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
PAFC2004
Goldmember
PAFC2004's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
1,084 posts
Adelaide, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #41, Sep 28, 2006 12:13:49 as a reply to Lord_Malone's post 2 months earlier.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Tee Why's Avatar
Joined Feb 2006
10,595 posts
Pasadena, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

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!!!

Post #42, Sep 28, 2006 18:18:54


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

http://groups.yahoo.co​m/group/LAShooters/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Tee Why wrote in post #2050603external 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.

Post #43, Sep 28, 2006 18:27:38


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
In2Photos
Cream of the Crop
In2Photos's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
19,808 posts
Near Charlotte, NC.
[MORE/SHARE]

Tee Why wrote in post #2050603external 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.

Post #44, Sep 28, 2006 18:42:35


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
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

In2Photos wrote in post #2050684external 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.

Post #45, Sep 28, 2006 18:54:47


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

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
436,659 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00087 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
849 guests, 650 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is movieplayer

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.