Canon 70-200 order of sharpness?

It's funny that those putting the 2.8 Non IS in their bottom list. Bet my left nut you have not owned this lens at all. I would put this lens on one of the sharpest zooms around. It might be a little behind colour and contrast wise but no way the F4 non IS is sharper than this.

The reviews on Photozone and the Digital Picture rate the new 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4 IS as sharpest. Both lenses on both sites are literally rave reviews.

f/2.8 IS II
f/4 IS

f/2.8
f/2.8 IS
f/4

I would say that the f/2.8 IS II and are very close and that the f/2.8, f/4, and f/2.8 IS are all similar, and just a little less sharp.

MNGUYEN wrote in post #10871820
Wow! I wonder if the low rating of the 2.8IS would be the same if the Mk2 didn't exist?

It would rate second rather than third..

Great topic. My next lens will be the 70-200 MKII

taxsux wrote in post #10868817
True, but you buy the faster lenses with IS so you have an advantage when the not so normal condition arrises, don't you think?

Otherwise we'd all be shooting with the cheapest F4.0 Non IS.

This thread was aimed at image quality, not f/stop. I will agree that when you need f/2.8; only an f/2.8 lens will fill the bill.

On the other hand, no one has ever taken a decent picture with a lens that was left at home because the photographer considered it too heavy to bring on the trip or the shoot.

Only the individual photographer can decide which of the parameters of any of the 70-200mm cousins is the most important for that photographer. The pertinent differences between the cousins are: weight, price, f/stop, and IS capability (not necessarily in that order).

Image quality was not a determining factor in my selection of the 70-200mm f/4L IS over the other 3 cousins (the f/2.8 MK-II was not in production when I bought my f/4L IS lens).

timnosenzo wrote in post #10864695
From my experience I'd say the old f/2.8 IS is probably the worst wide open.

You can see in these comparison crops that the regular f/4 does well against the old f/2.8 IS.

@200mm

@70mm

Not fair to compare lenses at different apertures !
At the same f/4 aperture, the 2.8 IS is better than the 4 non-IS, and as sharp as the 4 IS for normal usage:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=799653

I'd suggest to base purchase on price, IS, weight and aperture rather than "order of sharpness"

It is tack sharp and light, a wonderful lens.
I owned it and this is one of the best deals I can imagine !
You'll have to bump the iso in low light conditions though, to avoid slow shutter speeds, especially at 200mm.
But you sure won't be disappointed.

CheshireCat wrote in post #10874778
Not fair to compare lenses at different apertures !
At the same f/4 aperture, the 2.8 IS is better than the 4 non-IS, and as sharp as the 4 IS for normal usage:

Bull****. If I'm buying the heavier, more expensive f/2.8 IS over the f/4 IS, it's because I need the speed, not so I can stop it down to be sharp.

RPCrowe wrote in post #10874773
This thread was aimed at image quality, not f/stop. I will agree that when you need f/2.8; only an f/2.8 lens will fill the bill.

Read your post again

Not everyone shoots under 'normal conditions'

IQ of the 70-200 f4 is just as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 IS. but the 70-200 f4IS is sharper than both. the non IS f4 version is well worth the money if you shoot outdoors

They are all very very decent lenses in all factors... while some may be sharper, at f4 they are all very sharp and your basically splitting hairs to pick winners. You would also have to be looking at very zoomed in images to determin the difference.

As for the person who asked about the 70-200 f4 non-is its what i have. I dont use a tri-pod or mono-pod with it and havnt really found a situation where i wished i had one or even IS. Saying that, i use this lens outside or with a flash so i dont find this an issue. If you want to use it in low light then you would be better off with the IS version or at the very least a tri-pod. Personally id buy primes for low light but thats just me.

I agree with the above. The 2.8 IS is sharp, at 4.0 it's amazing. Why some rate the 2.8 IS models higher is that you can do more in low light or shoot at a faster speed than the f4 versions. The f4 non IS is sharp outdoors and light and easy to use. Love both. I don't have new II version, but sometime, I will upgrade, just because as a pro, the little advantage makes life easier.

What a surprise!
I am surprised that so many people know the correct order of sharpness...

2.8 IS II
4.0 IS
4.0 non-IS
2.8 non-IS
2.8 IS

ntop wrote in post #10877142
What a surprise!
I am surprised that so many people know the correct order of sharpness...

2.8 IS II
4.0 IS
4.0 non-IS
2.8 non-IS
2.8 IS

The 4.0 non-IS may be sharper wide open, but both the 2.8 non-IS and
2.8 IS are sharper at f4 and higher. For that reason I think 4.0 non-IS belongs at the bottom. It is still a VERY good lens.

msowsun wrote in post #10877197
The 4.0 non-IS may be sharper wide open, but both the 2.8 non-IS and
2.8 IS are sharper at f4 and higher. For that reason I think 4.0 non-IS belongs at the bottom. It is still a VERY good lens.

I guess I disagree. Who is going to buy the f/2.8 just to stop it down to f/4? If we're going to compare lenses stopped down, then we should compare them all stopped down.

I have an f/2.8 because I need f/2.8. If I'm not comfortable with the results at f/2.8 then it is not useful.