Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 18 Nov 2011 (Friday) 16:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

DxO - 70-200 IS Comparison - Is the original really better?

 
tats
Senior Member
Avatar
869 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2011
Location: NYC
     
Nov 18, 2011 16:22 |  #1

I searched a few times and didn't see this really discussed here so I wanted to see how this was taken by the community.

Link here (external link)

Before I purchased my IS II, I read TONS of reviews which all seemed to indicate that while the orginal was a great lens, the new version is better is most categories.

This DxO review seems to contradict those claims.

Any thoughts?


Rob
Canon 5DMkII -- Zeiss 21 2.8 -- 35L -- 50 1.8 -- 70-200 2.8L IS II FOR SALE -- 2X III Extender SOLD
Feedback/Gear --- Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 18, 2011 17:10 |  #2

tats wrote in post #13419096 (external link)
I searched a few times and didn't see this really discussed here so I wanted to see how this was taken by the community.

Link here (external link)

Before I purchased my IS II, I read TONS of reviews which all seemed to indicate that while the orginal was a great lens, the new version is better is most categories.

This DxO review seems to contradict those claims.

Any thoughts?

DxO ratings consistently do not match reality on a number of fronts. I have used some of the cameras (OK, several of the cameras) that they have rated and I can assure you that they are very, very, very wrong on many occasions. Whatever it is that they like to measure sure as hell has nothing to do with the kinds of things that actual, real photographers care about.

As for their measurement of the 70-200/2.8 IS II. Well, huge surprise, they are wrong again.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 18, 2011 17:22 |  #3

And I should mention, I too owned both the 70-200/2.8 IS and the 70-200/2.8 IS II. At the point that I had both in my posession I did of course test them against each other.

My assessment was this. For most prints, the actual differences between these two lenses is almost negligible at almost any normal sizes. At a 1:1 view from a body like the 1D Mark IV a difference can be seen, the Mark II is sharper.

Was the switch really worth the extra cost to me.....probably not really in prints. But I know me....those sharper 1:1 views would bug me had I not kept the Mark II.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Nov 18, 2011 17:24 |  #4

I don't know anything about their lens testing, but their sensor ratings are based entirely on various measurements (i.e. lab data). It's good because they are objective, and their raw data is accurate. It's bad because the ratings they've come up with have nothing to do with reality.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Nov 18, 2011 17:29 as a reply to  @ toxic's post |  #5

I find my mk2 better in every way apart from price.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,446 posts
Likes: 1621
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Nov 18, 2011 20:05 |  #6

JeffreyG wrote in post #13419334 (external link)
And I should mention, I too owned both the 70-200/2.8 IS and the 70-200/2.8 IS II. At the point that I had both in my posession I did of course test them against each other.

My assessment was this. For most prints, the actual differences between these two lenses is almost negligible at almost any normal sizes. At a 1:1 view from a body like the 1D Mark IV a difference can be seen, the Mark II is sharper.

Was the switch really worth the extra cost to me.....probably not really in prints. But I know me....those sharper 1:1 views would bug me had I not kept the Mark II.

Agree. I had both for a while. My ver I was real good. I would guess not much change till 11x14 this using 5d but I got rid of ver I and my 135L for the ver II.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Nov 18, 2011 20:13 |  #7

tats wrote in post #13419096 (external link)
I searched a few times and didn't see this really discussed here so I wanted to see how this was taken by the community.

Link here (external link)

Before I purchased my IS II, I read TONS of reviews which all seemed to indicate that while the orginal was a great lens, the new version is better is most categories.

This DxO review seems to contradict those claims.

Any thoughts?

This is has been on DPR for the last few days.
Many find their sensor tests to be pretty decent, the individual graphs, not the overall camera ratings, but their lens results to all too often be simply bizarre even on the individual charts (their overall lens ratings just beyond beyond absurd, far worse than even the overall camera ratings, they seem to like to pick out the single sharpest f-stop and focal length at the single sharpest part of the frame and rate the entire lens by that alone?).

Try these on for size:

at 300 f/5.6:
70-300 IS non-L [much better than] 70-300L IS [Better than] 300 f/4L IS

(hmmm)

or 16-35 2.8L II:
f/2.8 corners [much sharper than] f/5.6 corners

(it is true, that if you refocus for edges they don't necessarily peak at f/8+ as some think and many times will peak at not much beyond where the center does but I'd be stunned that an ultra-wide zoom would peak corners at f/2.8 over f/5.6!!!!)

or as you found (plus adding more) 200mm f/2.8:
70-200 2.8L IS [Better than] 70-200 2.8L non-IS [Better than] 70-200 2.8L IS II

(the exact reverse of by far most user reports)

or:
70-200 2.8 IS [easily beating over the entire range] 70-300L IS

(never mind that my 70-300L beats my 70-200 f/4 IS near 70mm and 200mm and that lens itself beat my 70-200 2.8 non-IS over the entire range and that beat a borrowed 70-200 2.8 IS, easily, at 200mm and was same or better across the rest of the way)

and there are so many more, I think




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 18, 2011 20:37 |  #8

wombatHorror wrote in post #13419968 (external link)
This is has been on DPR for the last few days.

or 16-35 2.8L II:
f/2.8 corners [much sharper than] f/5.6 corners

I don't know if DxO is simply unable to explain themselves in a way that humans can understand, or if they are totally stupid. It's like, aliens vs. imbeciles, and either explanation is plausible.

For the record, here is my 16-35/2.8 II corners at f/2.8 and then f/5.6. Does anyone agree that the second image (f/5.6) is better than f/2.8?

Clearly, DxO is not worth reading, ever.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Nov 19, 2011 05:31 |  #9

JeffreyG wrote in post #13420050 (external link)
I don't know if DxO is simply unable to explain themselves in a way that humans can understand, or if they are totally stupid. It's like, aliens vs. imbeciles, and either explanation is plausible.

For the record, here is my 16-35/2.8 II corners at f/2.8 and then f/5.6. Does anyone agree that the second image (f/5.6) is better than f/2.8?

Clearly, DxO is not worth reading, ever.

Bang on!


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 19, 2011 08:06 |  #10

You know, your comments on that 16-35 II made me go look it up on DxO. Not only are they wrong about the lens for corner performance vs. aperture, they are also wrong relative to focal length. They show the lens wide open f/2.8 is capable of ~50 lp/mm in the corner at 16mm but only ~20 lp/mm in the corner at 35mm.

For starters, this should immediately make most people think "Hmmmmm.....an UWA zoom with better corners at the ultra wide end? Kind of hard to believe."

So then a person like me might check it. And (results below) anyone with this lens and a pair of eyeballs can see that once again DxO is wrong. I don't know about you, but when a website claims infalliable highly technical performance data and is then demonstrably wrong over and over, well, I tend to not believe anything on the site.

It's not like DxO was wrong once. They said the D90 had less noise than the 5D. I tested my 5D with my brother-in-law's D90 and we were both left scratching our heads. Then there was the non-sensical 70-200/2.8 IS II results and now these ridiculous 16-35 II results.

We should have a contest to find the most ridiculous and unsupportable DxO claims.

Anyway - here's the f/2.8 corners from my 16-35 II at 16mm and then 35mm. DxO says the 16mm corner is better. What do you think?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Nov 19, 2011 11:49 |  #11

DXO is even worse then Ken Rockwell :-) KR, at least we know, he just writes things to raise controversy.

Seriously, I think the guys at DXO must be stoned all the time. I doubt any of them are actually photographers since if they were they would realize that their conclusions have little to do with reality... the image.

There are other useless sites out there but I rate DXO pretty much at the bottom of review sites.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Nov 19, 2011 12:45 |  #12

bohdank wrote in post #13422335 (external link)
DXO is even worse then Ken Rockwell :-) KR, at least we know, he just writes things to raise controversy.

Seriously, I think the guys at DXO must be stoned all the time. I doubt any of them are actually photographers since if they were they would realize that their conclusions have little to do with reality... the image.

There are other useless sites out there but I rate DXO pretty much at the bottom of review sites.

It makes one wonder about their DxO Optics Pro software. How can it correct for lens aberrations if this is the sort of result they get when they measure lenses? Some seem to say DxO OP works ok so maybe they have a different team on it or something and just tossed off the lens tests to some summer interns or something. It's almost like they are relying on camera AF for the tests or only doing on or two manual focus attempts. Although MTF is actually a lot trickier to measure than distortion and CA, for MTF comparisons you need utterly exact focus while for distortion you can be at any even semi-reasonable tolerance level and just need flat alignment.

Ignoring any of their overall sensor ratings, I do find their sensor plots to mostly pretty reasonable results. The Canon sensor data certainly matches pretty well for the most part to the independent tests that I and others have done. But yeah their overall sensor and camera rankings are just kinda silly.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Nov 19, 2011 12:49 |  #13

JeffreyG wrote in post #13421710 (external link)
It's not like DxO was wrong once. They said the D90 had less noise than the 5D. I tested my 5D with my brother-in-law's D90 and we were both left scratching our heads.

hmm but
It seems to show low light rating 1368 for 5D and 977 for D90 though.
It also shows 5D better at SNR.

It does show better lowest ISO DR for the D90, but that actually isn't necessarily shocking, if the D90 was the first SONY column ADC sensor (not sure, but I think it was).

OTOH it does have a very curious kink in the DR plot for the D90, was the D90 the one Nikon that was found to be doing something funky to the RAW I think???




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 132
Joined Dec 2010
     
Nov 19, 2011 14:03 |  #14

Canon probably didn't slip the DXO folks the "good review" bonus.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noisejammer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,053 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto ON
     
Nov 19, 2011 14:56 |  #15

Apart from attacking DxO Labs, Lloyd Chambers sent back several (iirc five) 70-200 IS Mark II lenses before he received one that was sharp over the field. This suggests that there's at least some possibility of a quality control problem.

On the other hand...
I bought a 70-200 Mk II from the first batch and it on my 7D. I mounted it piggy-back on my telescope. Manually focussed it resolves stars to near pixel level from about f/3.2 to f/6.3 suggesting that it's essentially diffraction limited. There was some evidence of violet fringing - this might have been very weak CA or sensor overload.

I also noted that when disabled, the IS sometimes switched off in a strange state. This lead to apparently weird performance. It hardly matters since this lens is supposed to work fine when tripod mounted with the IS turned on.


Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickr (external link)

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

4,314 views & 0 likes for this thread
DxO - 70-200 IS Comparison - Is the original really better?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is keke10
1279 guests, 276 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.