70-200 F2.8, is it really that soft when wide open on a crop body?

Whilst there's always some variation in lenses, and I don't doubt that there are some sharper examples out there, on average the f/2.8 IS mk1 is significantly softer wide open at the long end than any of the other 70-200s and sharpens significantly when stopped down slightly.

I used to have one. "Upgraded" from an f/4L IS and promptly "downgraded" back again because I wasn't satisfied with the sharpness wide open at 200mm. And no, it wasn't a poor copy - this is typical of the model I'm afraid.

So, whilst you may find a good one, personally I'd steer clear of this model. If you don't absolutely need the extra stop, get the f/4L IS. If you can live without IS, get the f/2.8L. If you need the extra stop and the IS, save for the mk2.

Although some of the measurements for this lens are not at the top of the class, I do believe this is the first time I have read someone referring to it as "soft".

When launched, it was likely among, if not THE sharpest zoom lenses ever made.

Possibly but that was a long time ago and the game has moved on.

It's not generally soft, just specifically wide open at the long end, usually around 180-200mm. Everything's relative and everyone's definition of "soft" differs but both f/4 lenses and the f/2.8 mk2 put it to shame here.

Why do you think Canon replaced it and none of the other 70-200s? I've seen copious reviews that state it's soft wide open at the long end and my own experience bears this out.

200mm wide open. I don't think this qualifies as soft. You may want to pixel peep, but I don't think that's bad either (100% if you click). These old cameras and lenses are perfectly useless! (I shot this 2 weeks ago)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Is that the IS or non-IS? Your sig doesn't mention the IS model which is what we're talking about it.

If it is the IS one and you got a sharper than normal copy then congratulations. Doesn't change the fact that, on average, they're significantly software wide open at 200mm than any of the other Canon 70-200 models.

Vertigo1 wrote in post #16031448
Is that the IS or non-IS? Your sig doesn't mention the IS model which is what we're talking about it.

If it is the IS one and you got a sharper than normal copy then congratulations. Doesn't change the fact that, on average, they're significantly software wide open at 200mm than any of the other Canon 70-200 models.

Sorry, I didn't see "IS" in the first post text -- I was going off of the subject line! This is the old 1995 design 70-200 f/2.8L.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16031336
Although some of the measurements for this lens are not at the top of the class, I do believe this is the first time I have read someone referring to it as "soft".

When launched, it was likely among, if not THE sharpest zoom lenses ever made.

Mine was fantastic for 6 years, so was the original EOS-1D with its 4MP digital sensor, but technology has improved, along with expectations. It was quite acceptable that lenses were softer wide open, this is becoming less so today.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16031336
Although some of the measurements for this lens are not at the top of the class, I do believe this is the first time I have read someone referring to it as "soft".

When launched, it was likely among, if not THE sharpest zoom lenses ever made.

Vertigo1 wrote in post #16031357
Possibly but that was a long time ago and the game has moved on.

It's not generally soft, just specifically wide open at the long end, usually around 180-200mm. Everything's relative and everyone's definition of "soft" differs but both f/4 lenses and the f/2.8 mk2 put it to shame here.

Why do you think Canon replaced it and none of the other 70-200s? I've seen copious reviews that state it's soft wide open at the long end and my own experience bears this out.

DamianOz wrote in post #16031738
Mine was fantastic for 6 years, so was the original EOS-1D with its 4MP digital sensor, but technology has improved, along with expectations. It was quite acceptable that lenses were softer wide open, this is becoming less so today.

I don't think soft is the right word, but ----

Sorry Vertigo 1 Canon replaces things based on - well who knows? Look at the build of the 50mm f/1.8 MKI vs the 50mm f/1.8MKII. Or not updating the crappy AF design in the 50mm f/1.4. There are others. Lets stick to the 70-200 (and sharpness).

70-200mm f/2.8L came out in 1995
70-200mm f/4 came out in 1999
70-200mm f/2.8 IS MKI came out in 2001
70-200mm f/4 IS came out in 2006
70-200mm f/2.8 IS MKII came out in 2010
So if we look at the order of production two came out before and two came out after the MKI.

I don’t think any of Canon’s 70-200Ls are bad but again let’s compare.

Seems like most are in agreement that wide open the MKII is the best followed closely by the f/4 IS. They are also the newest. (Isn’t technology a wonderful thing?)

I don’t have a copy of each of these lenses to compare (I only have my MKI) so I used the image comparisons found at www.the-digital-picture-com/Review. Yes, I know this is only one version of each lens and there are copy variations and my screen – but it’s all I have to use. I only looked at 70mm and 200mm across the entire frame.

So in order of release -

The f/2.8 (non-IS) and the MKI in my opinion were close in IQ. At the wide end the MKI is a clear winner. At the long end I gave the slight edge to the non-IS (It has a very slight edge but the MKI has IS and is weather sealed). [On the upgrade idea for the 2.8 non-IS if it is this good why change.]


I think the f/4 (non-IS) is also on par with the MKI, maybe slightly better center but worse away from the center - when both are wide open. Stop the MKI down to f/4 and it wins - hands down. (The f/4 does not do f/2.8)


The f/4 IS wins wide open, but stop-down the MKI down to f/4 and it is at least as sharp. (But again just try to stop the f/4 IS down to f/2.8)

The MKII beats the MKI, that’s just the way it is. Though I think my MKI is sharper than the one on TDP. [On the upgrade idea. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MKI was probably/arguably their top selling L lens - making them the most money. Make it better and maybe photographers will buy the new version - make even more money. I think it worked!]


As far as the Sigma OS version, the MKI looks sharper. Newer technology so OS should be better.


As far as the Tamron VC version, it looks sharper wide but worse at the tele end compared to the MKI. Newer technology so VC should be better.



So based on that site the MKI handles sharpness pretty darn close to the newer lenses (except maybe the MKII).

Again sometimes the lenses Canon picks to upgrade and how they upgrade seems a mystery to me.


I don’t think any of these lenses above would disappoint at all, and soft might not be the best word for any of them.

To the OP - Pick the characteristics (other than sharpness - they are all sharp) you want in your 70-200 and go from there.

I rented a 70-200 IS I to use on my 7d at the Fort Worth zoo. I swear my eyes were bleeding from the images being so sharp.


200mm @ 2.8

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16000175
You want sharp? Get a prime lens. Zoom lenses (even the 70-200 Mk2) will be softer than primes.

No, this is not correct. The EF 70-200 1:2.8 IS USM II is not softer than many of the primes in the same range. It's better than the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2.8 and 200/2.8.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16032308
No, this is not correct. The EF 70-200 1:2.8 IS USM II is not softer than many of the primes in the same range. It's better than the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2.8 and 200/2.8.

There are definitive tests that confirm the 70-200 2.8 IS II is sharper that the 200 2.8 II prime? Most of what I have read calls it a draw, and on a monopod I agree.

That's anything but a slight to the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is by far the sharpest and best Zoom I've ever used.

Tiggity-T wrote in post #16032293
I rented a 70-200 IS I to use on my 7d at the Fort Worth zoo. I swear my eyes were bleeding from the images being so sharp.


200mm @ 2.8

100%

Yep, that's what I get with my mk1 IS on my 7D.

Sharp enough for me.

'Softness' needs to be considered within the context of other lenses which are available.

It is true that the 70-200 f/2.8 lens does not have as high MTF scores compared to the 70-200 f/4 lenses or the newer 70-200 f/2.8 lens. But one does not hear chronic complaints about using lenses like the 100-400mm lens on APS-C cameras, and their MTF score does not even equal the 70-200mm f/2.8 original lens!

Wilt wrote in post #16033481
'Softness' needs to be considered within the context of other lenses which are available.

It is true that the 70-200 f/2.8 lens does not have as high MTF scores compared to the 70-200 f/4 lenses or the newer 70-200 f/2.8 lens. But one does not hear chronic complaints about using lenses like the 100-400mm lens on APS-C cameras, and their MTF score does not even equal the 70-200mm f/2.8 original lens!

I have actually heard that the 100-400 was a poor choice to use on an APS-C camera; but had not heard that about any of the 70-200's until now.

Photos from the v.1 have been purchased by magazines and agencies world wide for years. Nothing has changed. If you need the 2.8 buy it. If not, the f4 is very sharp and light weight. I wish I could justify owning both.