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 28 Oct 2009 (Wednesday) 19:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Am i being fussy? 70-200 2.8 IS

 
Feudal1
Senior Member
Avatar
583 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Frederick, MD
     
Oct 31, 2009 16:38 |  #46

Andrew, the reality is that the 70-200mm f/4 will pretty much always be sharper wide open than the 70-200mm f/2.8. However, having said that, you should also understand that photos taken from any SLR require some level of sharpening, either in post-processing, or in camera. When shooting JPGs with my 5DmkII, I pretty much always dial in extra sharpening (+5) in the camera. When shooting RAW, I add capture sharpening to the image when I first open it, and if I'm resizing, some output sharpening after I've re-sized it.

As others have pointed out, the 70-200mm f/4 IS is insanely sharp, which is nice, but you can't use it to shoot low-light at f/2.8 like you can with the 70-200mm f/2.8. Also, with the 2.8, you can really smooth out the background, and get great separation of foreground from background.

Finally, if you do purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8, and later feel that it isn't as sharp as you think it should be, you can always send it to Canon for diagnosis and re-calibration. I don't know about Canon UK, but Canon USA does a good job with repair, and usually has your lens back to you within 7-10 days.

For example, this is a 100% crop out of the camera, no sharpening, no processing of any kind:

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


And here is a full shot, re-sized for the web, with capture sharpening and output sharpening applied.

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


Without in-camera or post-processing sharpening, you're simply not going to get the most out of your camera and lens. And even though IS is brilliant, it doesn't work miracles. When shooting something stationary at 200mm, even with IS enabled, keep the shutter speed at 1/200 second and faster, at least until you're more comfortable with the lens, then you can try shooting at lower speeds. And when shooting something moving like the car in your third shot, keep the shutter speed at 1/500 of a second, and even faster for higher speed objects, so you can freeze the action. IS doesn't help with freezing action at all.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes. :)

-- Chris --
(gear list and POTN feedback)
flickr (external link) | SmugMug (external link)http://cwhite.smugmug.​com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Oct 31, 2009 18:39 |  #47

Feudal1 wrote in post #8931145 (external link)
Finally, if you do purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8, and later feel that it isn't as sharp as you think it should be, you can always send it to Canon for diagnosis and re-calibration. I don't know about Canon UK, but Canon USA does a good job with repair, and usually has your lens back to you within 7-10 days.

But if you are still evaluating a lens to purchase and you feel it is not as sharp as you think it should be, then do not purchase that copy.
This rule works in any case:

CASE 1
PROBLEM: That single copy is bad.
SOLUTION: Your money is perfectly working so you want perfectly working copy. Try another one. You will also help to increase employment at Canon QA !

CASE 2
PROBLEM: The lens design is not up to expectations.
SOLUTION: Try a different lens model. I.e. even if most people (like me) say the 70-200L is great, it is ok to say you don't like it. "Like" as "Art" is very subjective. Just show us great shots with other lenses !

CASE 3
PROBLEM: The user is bad.
SOLUTION: [now what was solution 3 ?] ;)


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROMEO.XK
Member
228 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Oct 31, 2009 19:49 |  #48

I just remember that while I was at B&H I got to try the 2.8 IS, and I just found the pic I took with it while I was there, and even tho there is no question that it is a great lens, and that it lets you do more that what the 4 IS does, I don't like the results I saw.

70-200 F/4 IS:

ISO 3200
200mm
F/4
1/200

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


ISO 2500
200mm
F/2.8
1/250

70-200 F/2.8 IS:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



BUt like I always say, most likely I did something wrong, like for once, and just saw that the ISO was different... And on the same note, the pic from the F/2.8 is lighter while at lower ISO and faster shutter, but not as sharp... But what do I know... I week of reading, looking at pics from this lens, and the F/4 (including some I have taken with my F4) and I can't make up my mind yet... :rolleyes:



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Feudal1
Senior Member
Avatar
583 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Frederick, MD
     
Oct 31, 2009 21:08 |  #49

ROMEO.XK wrote in post #8931884 (external link)
I just remember that while I was at B&H I got to try the 2.8 IS, and I just found the pic I took with it while I was there, and even tho there is no question that it is a great lens, and that it lets you do more that what the 4 IS does, I don't like the results I saw.

70-200 F/4 IS:

ISO 3200
200mm
F/4
1/200

IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


ISO 2500
200mm
F/2.8
1/250

70-200 F/2.8 IS:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



BUt like I always say, most likely I did something wrong, like for once, and just saw that the ISO was different... And on the same note, the pic from the F/2.8 is lighter while at lower ISO and faster shutter, but not as sharp... But what do I know... I week of reading, looking at pics from this lens, and the F/4 (including some I have taken with my F4) and I can't make up my mind yet... :rolleyes:

I don't think comparing one lens wide open at f/2.8, with another wide open at f/4 is a valid comparison. The f/2.8 is just not going to be as sharp wide open as the f/4.

Unless there is something technically wrong with the f/2.8, don't let the fact that it's a little softer wide-open deter you from purchasing it, especially if you want a telephoto that is great in low light, that creates creamy smooth bokeh, and that generates nice separation of subject from background. If you have any doubts, purchase it from a shop, like B&H, that has a 14 day return period. This will give you plenty of time to evaluate the lens in real-life shooting conditions, to determine if the lens is functioning correctly, and to determine if the lens is right for your needs.

Don't let yourself get too wrapped up in shooting test charts, and pixel peeping images on a computer monitor at 100%. It'll drive you nuts, and prevent you from enjoying your equipment, and photography, to it's fullest. I used to shoot test charts and pixel peep a lot, which in turn, caused me to obsess about my lenses and camera not producing images as sharp as I thought they should be. However, once I got out there and did actual real life shooting, those issues just went away. So, stay away from the charts and pixel peeping, unless you notice some issues in your real shots - then, at that point, it may make sense to go to the test charts to see what's going on.


-- Chris --
(gear list and POTN feedback)
flickr (external link) | SmugMug (external link)http://cwhite.smugmug.​com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROMEO.XK
Member
228 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Oct 31, 2009 21:25 |  #50

Feudal1 wrote in post #8932225 (external link)
I don't think comparing one lens wide open at f/2.8, with another wide open at f/4 is a valid comparison. The f/2.8 is just not going to be as sharp wide open as the f/4.

Unless there is something technically wrong with the f/2.8, don't let the fact that it's a little softer wide-open deter you from purchasing it, especially if you want a telephoto that is great in low light, that creates creamy smooth bokeh, and that generates nice separation of subject from background. If you have any doubts, purchase it from a shop, like B&H, that has a 14 day return period. This will give you plenty of time to evaluate the lens in real-life shooting conditions, to determine if the lens is functioning correctly, and to determine if the lens is right for your needs.

Don't let yourself get too wrapped up in shooting test charts, and pixel peeping images on a computer monitor at 100%. It'll drive you nuts, and prevent you from enjoying your equipment, and photography, to it's fullest. I used to shoot test charts and pixel peep a lot, which in turn, caused me to obsess about my lenses and camera not producing images as sharp as I thought they should be. However, once I got out there and did actual real life shooting, those issues just went away. So, stay away from the charts and pixel peeping, unless you notice some issues in your real shots - then, at that point, it may make sense to go to the test charts to see what's going on.

Well, one thing you got right for sure is that looking at the test charts, and pixel peeping will drive me nuts!!! BUt even tho I'm clear on the fact that the F2.8 is a great lens, that will open a few options, I'm just afraid I might end wanting the F4 later, ether way, I think I will end up getting it any way, and try it for a while, If I don't like it, I can always sell it and get the F/4...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,343 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1429
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 31, 2009 21:38 |  #51

Amd, I may have missed it in all the posts but do you print any of your shots or just look at them at high magnification on screen? This is not a criticism but just a query on actual usage.

I see a lot of people go through this here. They drive themselves nuts. You can find minute flaws with just about any lens when pixel peeping. Anything that I really like I print on 13x19 paper, mat, frame and exhibit. The flaws being discussed here virtually cannot be seen when appreciating a well exhibited print seen at viewing distance. Perhaps it will reveal itself you bury your nose in the print with a loop, but most folks don't enjoy good work that way.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It is a very satisfying lens. Most of my problems are due to pilot error - bad focus point, crappy lighting or a shutter speed that was too low.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROMEO.XK
Member
228 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Oct 31, 2009 22:07 |  #52

sapearl wrote in post #8932366 (external link)
Amd, I may have missed it in all the posts but do you print any of your shots or just look at them at high magnification on screen? This is not a criticism but just a query on actual usage.

I see a lot of people go through this here. They drive themselves nuts. You can find minute flaws with just about any lens when pixel peeping. Anything that I really like I print on 13x19 paper, mat, frame and exhibit. The flaws being discussed here virtually cannot be seen when appreciating a well exhibited print seen at viewing distance. Perhaps it will reveal itself you bury your nose in the print with a loop, but most folks don't enjoy good work that way.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It is a very satisfying lens. Most of my problems are due to pilot error - bad focus point, crappy lighting or a shutter speed that was too low.

That's my problem, with all my lenses, :o and I know it will be with this lens as well, but t least I will have the option, for when ever I get there... The only thing I'm not liking so much is the 3 stop IS on the 2.8...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Feudal1
Senior Member
Avatar
583 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Frederick, MD
     
Oct 31, 2009 22:08 |  #53

ROMEO.XK wrote in post #8932299 (external link)
Well, one thing you got right for sure is that looking at the test charts, and pixel peeping will drive me nuts!!! BUt even tho I'm clear on the fact that the F2.8 is a great lens, that will open a few options, I'm just afraid I might end wanting the F4 later, ether way, I think I will end up getting it any way, and try it for a while, If I don't like it, I can always sell it and get the F/4...

Make a list, think about the conditions in which you shoot, and do a comparison to figure out what's most important to you. This will help you decide which lens is right for you.

The advantages of the f/4 IS are:

1. Costs less
2. Weighs less
3. Newer IS system that theoretically gives you an additional stop of stability over the IS system in the f/2.8
4. Slightly sharper when viewing unprocessed images at 100%

(1) and (2) are significant advantages, if those are things that matter most to you. (3) is more a theoretical advantage than an actual advantage, and (4) is an advantage only if you spend your time pixel-peeping.

The advantages of the f/2.8 are:

1. Better low-light performance
2. Nicer, creamier bokeh
3. Ability to use the razor-thin DOF at f/2.8 to achieve greater seperation of subject from background

If you aren't shooting low light, and if weight/cost are significant factors to you, the f/4 is probably your best option. It's a great lens, capable of creating amazing images. However, if low-light shooting is critical to your needs, the f/2.8 is the best option.

Honestly, you can't go wrong either way. They are both incredible lenses. Good luck with your decision. :)


-- Chris --
(gear list and POTN feedback)
flickr (external link) | SmugMug (external link)http://cwhite.smugmug.​com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AMD87
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
147 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
     
Oct 31, 2009 22:29 |  #54

Feudal1 wrote in post #8931145 (external link)
Andrew, the reality is that the 70-200mm f/4 will pretty much always be sharper wide open than the 70-200mm f/2.8. However, having said that, you should also understand that photos taken from any SLR require some level of sharpening, either in post-processing, or in camera. When shooting JPGs with my 5DmkII, I pretty much always dial in extra sharpening (+5) in the camera. When shooting RAW, I add capture sharpening to the image when I first open it, and if I'm resizing, some output sharpening after I've re-sized it.

As others have pointed out, the 70-200mm f/4 IS is insanely sharp, which is nice, but you can't use it to shoot low-light at f/2.8 like you can with the 70-200mm f/2.8. Also, with the 2.8, you can really smooth out the background, and get great separation of foreground from background.

Finally, if you do purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8, and later feel that it isn't as sharp as you think it should be, you can always send it to Canon for diagnosis and re-calibration. I don't know about Canon UK, but Canon USA does a good job with repair, and usually has your lens back to you within 7-10 days.

Without in-camera or post-processing sharpening, you're simply not going to get the most out of your camera and lens. And even though IS is brilliant, it doesn't work miracles. When shooting something stationary at 200mm, even with IS enabled, keep the shutter speed at 1/200 second and faster, at least until you're more comfortable with the lens, then you can try shooting at lower speeds. And when shooting something moving like the car in your third shot, keep the shutter speed at 1/500 of a second, and even faster for higher speed objects, so you can freeze the action. IS doesn't help with freezing action at all.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes. :)

i have been loking and talking to alot of people and it is seeming more and more that the 2.8 is the one for me,a friend also gave me a tour of his studio and showed pictures hes took on the 2.8 and they are amazing and he's bring it in tomorrow for me to have a play with it.

sapearl wrote in post #8932366 (external link)
Amd, I may have missed it in all the posts but do you print any of your shots or just look at them at high magnification on screen? This is not a criticism but just a query on actual usage.

I print ones that i really like.


Andrew
Canon 450D, Canon 7D Gripped
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS , Sigma 70-300mm, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon 50mm 1.4, Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II VC
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROMEO.XK
Member
228 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Oct 31, 2009 22:54 |  #55

Feudal1 wrote in post #8932519 (external link)
Make a list, think about the conditions in which you shoot, and do a comparison to figure out what's most important to you. This will help you decide which lens is right for you.

The advantages of the f/4 IS are:

1. Costs less
2. Weighs less
3. Newer IS system that theoretically gives you an additional stop of stability over the IS system in the f/2.8
4. Slightly sharper when viewing unprocessed images at 100%

(1) and (2) are significant advantages, if those are things that matter most to you. (3) is more a theoretical advantage than an actual advantage, and (4) is an advantage only if you spend your time pixel-peeping.

The advantages of the f/2.8 are:

1. Better low-light performance
2. Nicer, creamier bokeh
3. Ability to use the razor-thin DOF at f/2.8 to achieve greater seperation of subject from background

If you aren't shooting low light, and if weight/cost are significant factors to you, the f/4 is probably your best option. It's a great lens, capable of creating amazing images. However, if low-light shooting is critical to your needs, the f/2.8 is the best option.

Honestly, you can't go wrong either way. They are both incredible lenses. Good luck with your decision. :)



First at all, let me thank you for taking the time to reply to my post...

SO far I have done most of my shooting during the day, but many times when I go to the zoo, when I go into those indoor exhibits, I have found my self having a bit of a problem, also, with the winter almost here, and the days getting shorter and shorter, I figure the F2.8 would end up been more useful...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AMD87
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
147 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
     
Nov 01, 2009 13:11 |  #56

Visited my friend at his studio today and had a play of his 70-200 2.8 and i guess it was a case of slight user error. After him giving me some advice on how to use it we tried some "paparazzi" style shots (him stepping out of a car and walking towards me) and this lense is amazing,i think another issue is my laptop doesnt show the images as sharp as they really are.

On his Mac in the studio the image looked razor sharp whereas on my dell they look sharp but not as sharp, and also due to living in scotland were people talk about this thing called the sun but personally i think they are lieing as theres no such thing :lol: this 2.8 HUGE advantage over the 4 and i doubt with the 4 i would get as sharp and as clear images. I need a 1D too :lol:

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2721/4064214675_127f997f94_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/42427406@N05/4​064214675/  (external link)

100% crops
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/4064214781_b0a330a245_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/42427406@N05/4​064214781/  (external link)
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2703/4064214783_31f44f502f_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/42427406@N05/4​064214783/  (external link)

Andrew
Canon 450D, Canon 7D Gripped
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS , Sigma 70-300mm, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon 50mm 1.4, Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II VC
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BenJohnson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,811 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
Nov 01, 2009 13:51 |  #57

Congrats, that looks more like I would expect from the 70-200 2.8 IS!


|Ben Johnson Photography (external link)|
|Gear List|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Nov 01, 2009 13:52 as a reply to  @ BenJohnson's post |  #58

Looks like you are getting the hang of it.:D


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROMEO.XK
Member
228 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Nov 01, 2009 18:26 |  #59

Well, even tho I didn't want to go into NY today, I did, just because I wanted to get the lens dilemma, so I just took a look at it, and told them to give it to me, and took it for a test drive at the NY Marathon, well, the weight is nothing to worry about, now, I will have to learn how to use this thing...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROMEO.XK
Member
228 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Nov 05, 2009 16:20 |  #60

Ok, well, even tho I hate dragging this tread more, I still have some questions...

After looking at the pic that AMD posted, I'm not getting even close to what he has there, so far I have gotten way better results with the F4 IS, as I said before, I took my lens to the NY Marathon right after I got it, and the results were terrible, while shooting on IE Servo, center weight, and center focus (Single and expanded) I have tried on a walk on Philly, again, no too crazy about the results (Both, day, and night).

When I started to think about this lens is because I wanted something better that what I had (F4 IS) and so far, I don't think I got it. Maybe I got a bad copy, maybe I'm the bad copy (most likely) but so far I have taken 600 pics, and no a single WOW. I'm also wondering if this lens is suppose to be used on a FF body? I'm using a 7D. IS the main use of this lens to be use as a portrait lens?

So far I have found out that the I used to enjoy the F/4 more that this one, am I that crazy?




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

7,964 views & 0 likes for this thread
Am i being fussy? 70-200 2.8 IS
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 Flo29
867 guests, 248 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.