DPReview posts Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Review...

Check it out, seems like a fair review.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …51602canon70200​review.asp

They recently review the Nikon 70-200 VR and found it performed better on DX bodies as opposed to FX. They say the opposite of the Canon lens, saying it performs better on FF bodies as opposed to crop bodies.

Enjoy!

nice find, thanks

It'll be interesting to see when they review the f/4 IS.

Jman13 wrote in post #5536448
It'll be interesting to see when they review the f/4 IS.

2013.

Jman13 wrote in post #5536448
It'll be interesting to see when they review the f/4 IS.

It will be really interesting since they review using both FF and crop bodies, unlike sites like Photozone that uses strictly crop bodies. Who knows, maybe the f/4 version is more impressive on a crop camera than a FF camera.

Curious as to why it would be softer wide open on a 1.6x body but not on FF?

Isn't the "meat" of the image within the APS-C frame?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5536496
Curious as to why it would be softer wide open on a 1.6x body but not on FF?

Isn't the "meat" of the image within the APS-C frame?

I assume because it is a "crop" of the full sized image, right??

I prefer the lens reviews on SLRGEAR.COM

The dpreview reviews are decent at best.

Elton Balch wrote in post #5536619
I assume because it is a "crop" of the full sized image, right??

Conventional wisdom says the best quality is at the center of the image with distortion increasing towards the edges.

So for DPR to say/show that a lens is softer on a crop body than on a full frame doesn't make sense to me since the crop body is only using the middle 2/3 of the frame.

I'm sure I'm missing something simple but I'll be dipped if I can figure out what that would be.

Nice review.

Ahh, nice. I was looking forward to some more Canon lens reviews.

They really need to pick up the pace, though.

EDIT: I'll say one thing for Phil and the crew - ya just gotta love the huge camera/lens porn shots. They make nice wallpapers. Heh.

Double Negative wrote in post #5537942
EDIT: I'll say one thing for Phil and the crew - ya just gotta love the huge camera/lens porn shots. They make nice wallpapers. Heh.

Definitely!

What surprised me is how much bigger the Nikon lens is over the Canon. I always felt that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 was pretty big considering its a medium telephoto lens. But damn the Nikon is really big.

http://a.img-dpreview.com …vr_n15/Images/7​0-200s.jpg

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5536496
Curious as to why it would be softer wide open on a 1.6x body but not on FF?

Isn't the "meat" of the image within the APS-C frame?

Because the image has to be enlarged more for an equal print when you use a smaller sensor.

What you are seeing here is that the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR sacrificed corner sharpness hugely to increase the center performance to the point where the 1.5X enlargement of all of their digital bodies (at the time) would be optimized.

Canon maintained edge performance for 1Ds and 5D users, so center sharpness is not as good as the Nikon lens. This means that 1.6X Canon users have a small reduction in IQ due to the extra enlargement required. This issue affects all lenses though really. Smaller formats require more enlargement for a given print, so higher lens resolution is demanded by smaller formats.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5540455
Because the image has to be enlarged more for an equal print when you use a smaller sensor.

What you are seeing here is that the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR sacrificed corner sharpness hugely to increase the center performance to the point where the 1.5X enlargement of all of their digital bodies (at the time) would be optimized.

Canon maintained edge performance for 1Ds and 5D users, so center sharpness is not as good as the Nikon lens. This means that 1.6X Canon users have a small reduction in IQ due to the extra enlargement required. This issue affects all lenses though really. Smaller formats require more enlargement for a given print, so higher lens resolution is demanded by smaller formats.

Ok, I 100% buy your explanation. And I can see how this translates to printed images, but...

The DPR tests (and lens tests in general) are only measuring in electronic terms aren't they? How does your explanation regarding softer enlargements translate to a lens test where the final image is finite (limited by the size of the target sensor only?)

I hope my question makes sense. I can visualize what I'm asking but I may not be verbalizing it well.

Thanks....

The sharpness at 70mm f/5.6 on full frame is literally off the chart