New 70-200 f2.8L IS compared to my old 28-135 IS - 2nd Batch

I was considering getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 but found that the sweetspot on those lenses are at around f8. So I figured that if the lens was not what I wanted at 2.8 then I should get the 70-200L f4 being that it was sweet throughtout. I don't think the quality is going down as the apeture is being dcreased, I just think that the apetures that the test is being done at is the sweet spot of the the non L lens. However said that people buy the 70-200L IS for the sake of speed is correct. While I don't have the 2.8, I do shoot with my f4 wide open in most situations...Dean

Anyone see a ruler around here?

Out of topic - Coltrane

The first thing I noticed Where is a copy of Love Supreme?

Jim - Actually, you need a scale. . .

Lbs., Price, Lens Model
0.82, $230, 28-105
1.10, $410, 28-135 IS
1.56, $580, 70-200 f/4
2.80, $1,140, 70-200 f/2.8
3.20, $1,649, 70-200 f/2.8 IS

Price = 323*Wt^(1.33)



(B&H specs and prices)

Don't make me get out my ruler picture!!

Ahhhh...found one...

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

I remember doing some MTF comparison (from Photodo data) between Canon 28-135, Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM and Canon 70-200/2.8.
If memory serves me well, 28-135 peak performance was about 70 mm at f/8. It was as good (or better) as the Canon and Sigma, so no surprise here if the pics are similiar.
A bit of surprise at 135 mm, where 28-135 gets softer than at 70 mm. Also, Canon 70-200 improves as it gets longer (again getting a bit softer at 200 mm).
So, IMHO at 135 mm the 70-200 should be a clear winner.
Well, look at it this way: if you are happy with the pictures from 70-200, then maybe your 28-135 is just a very good, sharp example of the lens ?

RFMSports wrote:
Ahhhh...found one...

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

ROFL! I can't touch that one.

Leszek, this might be the answer to the mystery... the 28-135 is at 70mm at its best, and 70-200 at it's worst. Makes sense to me.