Would the 70-200 2.8 II beat this?

Please take a look at these 3 shots. I used my 5d3, 70-200 f/4 IS USM. All were f/8, 500th, auto ISO, handheld, cloudy sunlight. First at 70mm, then 135mm, then 200mm.

I know the new lens should be better, but by how much for a shot like this? Will it only be better at wider apertures? I hope Flickr isn't taking them down obscuring the true resolution. You know how Flickr works, click the image to zoom. THANK YOU.

https://www.flickr.com …385/in/datepost​ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com …226/in/datepost​ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com …614/in/datepost​ed-public/

I doubt you'd notice a difference, even pixel peeping. The 70-200 f/4 IS is a very good lens itself; and with both lenses stopped down to f/8...I have a hard time believing you could tell them apart.

Compared to the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) or the old 70-200 f/2.8 I expect you'd notice a small improvement

I dont think so, but should closely match it. I think the lens is optimized for f2.8-5.6, after that, it begins to drop in performance.

you can play around with this:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

but i don't think it'd make sense to buy the f2.8 if you're planning on shooting it at f8...

I've used a lot of Canon 70-200s. A number of arguments can be made that one is sharper than the other but they are all still L glass and extremely sharp. Personally I chose the F/4 for weight and portability as I don't really need to have a wider aperture. I suspect there are a lot of other users out there who share my motivation. I can't imagine getting results so much better with the 2.8II as to motivate someone to change lenses based on sharpness alone.

I just reshot them at f/4. Does the new lens beat them at f/4? I realize this is very subjective.


https://www.flickr.com …510/in/datepost​ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com …091/in/datepost​ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com …831/in/datepost​ed-public/

The 70-200mm f/4 IS is one of those rare lenses that can boast of being very sharp at their largest aperture. No need to stop down to get 'better' images: this lens is cutting sharp right off the bat.

Heh, it's even sharper at f/4 than 'stopped down to f/8' at some focal lengths: http://www.photozone.d​e …anon_70200_4is_​5d?start=1

Here's the 70-200mm f/2.8 II for comparison: http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_70200_2is​28?start=1
Yes, it's slightly sharper than its leaner sibling, but as mentioned above: the difference is hardly noticeable, whilst the lens itself is definitely more noticeable (it's a mammoth). I'd rather have the smaller weight and size than a negligible difference in sharpness.

Even at f/4 is isn't terrible.

if you goto slrgear.com and compare the blur charts
- there is no difference at 70mm
- there is no difference at 100mm
- the F2.8 is slightly sharper at 135mm
- the F4 is slightly sharper at 200mm

and, the differences are tiny

and, you are looking at 1 copy of the F4 vs 1 copy of the F2.8 - as such, the variations between copies of the F4s themselves and the F2.8s themselves are likely just as big as the difference between F4s and F2.8s

my guess is that if you add up all the pictures ever taken with all the F2.8IIs, 85%+ were taken at F2.8 - otherwise the weight difference could never be justified

the F4 is a great lens but it is a weird lens because if you are an events person, you do shoot indoors, and you need F2.8 - and you would probably take an even faster lens like many 135L users chose to do if it was more practical (with the A7Rii and IBIS, the 135L is awesome as you can use lower SS)

i own both the F4 IS and the F2.8 II IS and I hardly ever use the F4, not because it isn't sharp, it is, it is just I need F2.8 - since i also own a A7Rii I am starting to use the 135L far more than I did in the past

I too use only the f/2.8 - not because of DoF considerations, but because the wider aperture lets modern SLRs use the high-precision AF points for better focus accuracy. Switching from the f/4 definitely increased my hit rate, and it had nothing to do with the mechanics of the lens - it was all about the 7D and 5D3 AF points. Even though I rarely shoot wide open with it, f/2.8 is worth having for that reason alone, to me.

chuckmiller wrote in post #17836292
Please take a look at these 3 shots. I used my 5d3, 70-200 f/4 IS USM. All were f/8, 500th, auto ISO, handheld, cloudy sunlight. First at 70mm, then 135mm, then 200mm.

I know the new lens should be better, but by how much for a shot like this? Will it only be better at wider apertures? I hope Flickr isn't taking them down obscuring the true resolution. You know how Flickr works, click the image to zoom. THANK YOU.

https://www.flickr.com …385/in/datepost​ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com …226/in/datepost​ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com …614/in/datepost​ed-public/

Heya,

At F8, no.

At F4, it will be so similar, you'll wonder what the big deal is.

At F2.8, yes.

Very best,

You are comparing lenses in the stratosphere of IQ ability. Purchase the f/2.8 version for f/2.8; weight, size, and cost are irrelevant if you need f/2.8. Purchase the f/4 version if any of the listed parameters bothers you. IQ is not a distinguishing factor here.

GregDunn wrote in post #17837905
I too use only the f/2.8 - not because of DoF considerations, but because the wider aperture lets modern SLRs use the high-precision AF points for better focus accuracy. Switching from the f/4 definitely increased my hit rate, and it had nothing to do with the mechanics of the lens - it was all about the 7D and 5D3 AF points. Even though I rarely shoot wide open with it, f/2.8 is worth having for that reason alone, to me.

That reminds me, if you need to use teleconverters, you'd be able to use the 2x with the f/2.8L AND retain autofocus, whereas you won't with the f/4. The latter will be limited to the 1.4x teleconverter, unless you don't mind focusing manually.

Alveric wrote in post #17838172
That reminds me, if you need to use teleconverters, you'd be able to use the 2x with the f/2.8L AND retain autofocus, whereas you won't with the f/4. The latter will be limited to the 1.4x teleconverter, unless you don't mind focusing manually.

OP is using a 5DIII. Pretty sure that focuses at f/8.

I've owned both - the f/2.8L IS II is basically an f/2.8 version of the f/4L IS, the quality is almost identical. The f/4L IS is a staggeringly good lens and very sharp wide open. I originally swapped mine out for a f/2.8L IS but then swapped back as it was inferior in all ways except the one stop aperture advantage.

Get the f/2.8 if you need the extra stop, otherwise keep the f/4 - the former is twice the cost, twice the weight and one stop faster, in all other ways they're pretty much identical.