70-200 f2.8 mk2 sharper then primes

Could this be? this lens as sharp if not sharper then many primes?

not optimus

McNair wrote in post #12765044
not optimus

LOL

There are LOTS of people that did test and side by sides and while it is a fantastic piece of glass it does VERY well compared to the primes but I would say it isn't sharper..... Just close to as sharp as primes.

From my experience it is as sharp as some of the primes but not sharper than my 200 f/2 IS, which is in a league of its own. But it is prolly one of the best zooms Canon has released.....JMO.

The other way of looking at it is that it's (in most cases) slower, heavier/larger, and a LOT more expensive.

IMO people that are struggling to decide between them probably just don't know enough about what they actually need and shouldn't buy either. You can get a great 70-200mm F/2.8 IS zoom, or for less money get an 85mm F/1.8, 135mm F/2, and 200mm F/2.8 where each individual lens is smaller/lighter with a larger aperture across most of the range - but missing IS and the versatility.

so this lens is probably if not the BEST zoom lens ever made by canon or is their a better zoom lens out their?

primes are good and all but very restrictive. maybe if you have two bodies, one witha 135L and the otehr with a 50mm or 85mm u will be fine

jonneymendoza wrote in post #12766933
primes are good and all but very restrictive. maybe if you have two bodies, one witha 135L and the otehr with a 50mm or 85mm u will be fine

For most people (hobbyists) catching every possible shot isn't necessary.

yes but as a hobbiest having to switch lenses every 2 shots can be quite the pain in the buttocks and remove some of the "hobby" from it and instead make it a chore.

In my opinion, it's probably the best zoom that Canon has made to date. It's as sharp, if not sharper, than any prime lens that I've used. This includes the 35L, 85L, 135L.

The only lens that I have that is sharper than this zoom is the 100 IS macro. That lens is stupid sharp.

On a crop, probably it's as sharp as any primes .. On fullframe, I don't think it's sharper than good primes (85L or 200L) I that don't think that the zoom can approach these tow primes closed @f2.8...
But what a pain to carry all day long a 70-200L2.8 when you can just go with a 85L days, nights, indoor, outdoor .... If you are workin with limited time or space, 70-200 can be more comfortable otherwise I can spend 90% of the time with a 85L or a 200L.

s2kennyc wrote in post #12767140
In my opinion, it's probably the best zoom that Canon has made to date. It's as sharp, if not sharper, than any prime lens that I've used. This includes the 35L, 85L, 135L.

The only lens that I have that is sharper than this zoom is the 100 IS macro. That lens is stupid sharp.

... On fullframe, 100L @F2.8 seems to be really far from being as sharp as 85L (center of 100L is even less sharp than edges of 85L)

Have a look of resolution profiles of dxomark ...

http://media.dxomark.c​om …camera2%29/436#​div1anchor

On crop they are all more or less in the same league ... but that's due to sensor limitations.

I don't have a crop camera. I have both lenses and rather trust my own tests and eyes rather than dxomark. I know how much you like the 85L. Its my favorite lens.

s2kennyc wrote in post #12767140
In my opinion, it's probably the best zoom that Canon has made to date. It's as sharp, if not sharper, than any prime lens that I've used. This includes the 35L, 85L, 135L.

The only lens that I have that is sharper than this zoom is the 100 IS macro. That lens is stupid sharp.

The L macro and the 24mm TSE L 2 are so stupid sharp.

From the crop charts at the digital, they place 2, and 1, the 70-200 IS2 is behind them but boy ohhhh boy those three lenses are hair splitting, need-to-soften-the-picture-of-the-bride sharp.

I've found the 70-200 IS2 to be a little TOO revealing of skin problems!!!

Wow!!!

I don't see it being as sharp imo my 85mkII can't be touched but that's my opinion .

phreeky wrote in post #12766443
The other way of looking at it is that it's (in most cases) slower, heavier/larger, and a LOT more expensive.

IMO people that are struggling to decide between them probably just don't know enough about what they actually need and shouldn't buy either. You can get a great 70-200mm F/2.8 IS zoom, or for less money get an 85mm F/1.8, 135mm F/2, and 200mm F/2.8 where each individual lens is smaller/lighter with a larger aperture across most of the range - but missing IS and the versatility.

So did a quick check on the " 85mm F/1.8, 135mm F/2, and 200mm F/2.8 ". Looks like it adds up to about $2,350... so just about the same price as the 70-200 f2.8 IS MK2...

The individual lens may be smaller and lighter, but if you add the weight up of the individual lens the group actually weighs quite a bit MORE than the 70-200. So while the camera might not be as heavy with with the prime lenses on, you bag now actually weighs more...

And most importantly, the type of shooting I like to do simply doesn't lend itself to shooting at only one focal length... So for me the 24-105 goes on the 50D and the 70-200 f2.8 goes on the 5D2 and I end up with a pretty good range, with very acceptable sharpness, while never having to change lens, unless I want to swap lens between the bodies...

just my 2 cents...