Want something for FREE?!...

Well thanks for playing folks. Looks like I get to keep my very special multicoated lens tissues.

Before I post the answers, note that:

1) Most (if not all) lenses perform differently at varying subject distances. You rarely get this from "reviews" and tests, but I understand time is limited and resources too. For example, I have repeatedly stated that the 7-2 f2.8 IS performs better at further distances than up close whereas the 7-2 f4 IS is the opposite. Having used multiple copies of both lenses, I found this consistently and have crops at my site to show for it. The 7-2 f4 IS is stunning for relatively close subjects but the f2.8 IS can out perform the f4 IS at further subject distances with both at f4. Moving on...

2) While the Sigma OS is at 200mm wide open (f6.3) and performs admirably here at 9 feet distance in the center, its borders are very weak and if I showed them here it would finish last. But this test showed only center performance on a 20D body, where it's quite impressive IMO.

3) Remember these are all wide open; stop them down to f6.3 (like the OS lens is at) and they are ninja sharp.

4) Without further ado...







A = Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX
B = Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS
C = Sigma 18-200 OS
D = Canon 100-400 IS
E = Canon 70-200 f4 IS

Thanks for playing folks.

Oh man, I would never guess

The f4 IS is really a rocking lens.

And what happened to the 2.8 IS

4x4rock wrote in post #3645542
Oh man, I would never guess

The f4 IS is really a rocking lens.

And what happened to the 2.8 IS

Sonny, read my comments above. Want to see my f2.8 IS smoke my f4 IS? Shoot a subject near infinity or slightly closer and see... [Well, not smoke, but slightly better.]

Here's but one of many examples (posted back in Feb 07): http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7387404​5/original

This contest ain't over until the fat lady sings.
We need now to hear some sage closing remarks by Edward Radar aka The Dog Boy.

PetKal wrote in post #3645724
This contest ain't over until the fat lady sings.
We need now to hear some sage closing remarks by Edward Radar aka The Dog Boy.

LOL. Just what we need. More "rah rah" 7-2 f4 IS...

Do I get a booby prize?

prime80 wrote in post #3646453
Do I get a booby prize?

PM me your home addy, I'll send you the lens tissues. I just feel bad for you --- the only one to get NONE correct!

ahahaha. yay for prime80!

LightRules wrote in post #3646508
PM me your home addy, I'll send you the lens tissues. I just feel bad for you --- the only one to get NONE correct!

Now let me point out that there are LOTS of people who didn't get any correct, This is simply because we didn't even try...

WMS

WMS wrote in post #3646562
Now let me point out that there are LOTS of people who didn't get any correct, This is simply because we didn't even try...

Well, the way I see it is this: I'm going to reward him who tried but failed (miserably, I might add) rather than those who just sat on their @se (INVALID EMAIL)

WooHoo!!! Utter failure pays off in the end!!!

LightRules wrote in post #3645560
Sonny, read my comments above. Want to see my f2.8 IS smoke my f4 IS? Shoot a subject near infinity or slightly closer and see... [Well, not smoke, but slightly better.]

Here's but one of many examples (posted back in Feb 07): http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7387404​5/original

I am hard pressed to tell the variance outside an ever-so-slight contrast advantage (by the 2.8L) that might actually be enhanced further by the 2.8L shots being a tiny hair over-exposed (highlights are slightly stronger) in relation to the 4L shots. Overall its remarkable how closely those two lenses perform! Thanks for posting that, I had been wondering about the difference.

In addition, the liscense plate shots shows a slight CA advantage on the 4L. Almost all of the black/white borders are colored red/blue on the 2.8L crop.

I guess it makes sense that you would want a sports lens to be primarily tuned in the farther field. I had borrowed a friend's 2.8L IS last year (for one afternoon) and was unhappy after testing it a little, thinking he had a poor copy. It makes a lot more sense now why...80% of the shots I took were within a 15-20 meter range; most probably not the sweetest spot for the lens.

LR,

Can you run some identical shots of 100-400L vs. 70-200¤2.8L vs. 70-200¤4L at 400mm & f/9?? I only had a cheapo 2x to test mine with, and I am curious how it does with a quality 2x, compared to the other 2 Ls. I am assuming of course that you have a Canon or sigma-apo 2x TC.