Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM

PM01 wrote in post #5768085
Seems like nobody is willing to guess. Wonder why?

MY REVIEW IS UP.

http://www.clublexus.c​om …2432&posted=1#p​ost3622432

Yes, its on that "car forum" again. Deal with it and enjoy the review!

Thanks for the review! Very interesting!

PM01 wrote in post #5765021
I usually stay AWAY from IS lenses because they DEGRADE the image quality. Mind you, this is on tripod, IS off. The degradation is there because of the additional air/glass surfaces that the light has to fight through. Yes, I also did a test on the NON IS versus the IS lenses and the NON IS lenses were always sharper and cleaner. Not by a small amount either. That includes the 70-200 2.8 versions as well as the 300 2.8 versions.

The new 200/2L IS changes all that.

Now if your hands shake, stick with the IS. If you're pretty much rock steady like I am, then go with NON IS lenses. The new 200 and 800 are the exceptions though.

All the IS Supers are sharper than their non-IS predecessors. It's too simplistic to say that just because a lens has less elements in them then it must be sharper.

Heck even late model zooms are sharper with IS.

A more correct statement would be to say that early IS lenses were generally less sharp than their non-IS siblings. As the optical technology matures the statement hasn't been valid since the early part of this decade.

I beg to differ on that statement. I've tested brand new batches of 70-200 2.8L non and IS versions, head to head as well as an older 1994 version of the 70-200 2.8L. The old one is noticably sharper.

According to the Canon tech rep, the brand new generation of IS, starting with the 200 and 800 lenses are far better corrected. Anything before this is considered "first generation".

That writeup will come later. But for now it's the 200 vs 200.

PM01 wrote in post #5769681
I beg to differ on that statement. I've tested brand new batches of 70-200 2.8L non and IS versions, head to head as well as an older 1994 version of the 70-200 2.8L. The old one is noticably sharper.

According to the Canon tech rep, the brand new generation of IS, starting with the 200 and 800 lenses are far better corrected. Anything before this is considered "first generation".

That writeup will come later. But for now it's the 200 vs 200.

I deliberately said early IS lenses, read again.

The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4, 70-200/4 are all sharper in IS versions. So it has nothing to do with the latest generation IS. The 300/2.8 IS for example is almost ten years old.

The only lenses with IS versions softer than non-IS are the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4.

cwphoto wrote in post #5769740
I deliberately said early IS lenses, read again.

The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4, 70-200/4 are all sharper in IS versions. So it has nothing to do with the latest generation IS. The 300/2.8 IS for example is almost ten years old.

***Tested the 300 2.8L NON vs the IS versions and the NON still has the edge. But then my sample goes back to about 1994. It's very close though!***

The only lenses with IS versions softer than non-IS are the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4.

Agreed on the lenses that you listed.

For Canon to have improved their lenses on this newest generation to the point where it's beating out the old standards is amazing. The crystalline fluorite doesn't hurt either.

cwphoto wrote in post #5769740
I deliberately said early IS lenses, read again.

The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4, 70-200/4 are all sharper in IS versions. So it has nothing to do with the latest generation IS. The 300/2.8 IS for example is almost ten years old.

The only lenses with IS versions softer than non-IS are the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4.

How about 500 F4 IS, did you not mention that one deliberately ?
(i just ordered one, that's why i'm asking )

romulus_be wrote in post #5770054
How about 500 F4 IS, did you not mention that one deliberately ?
(i just ordered one, that's why i'm asking )

It didn't have an immediate predecessor like the others.

Only thing close was the 500/4.5L, which in itself was a good lens.

The only test that I matched the 500/4L IS to was against a Takahashi FSQ astronomical optic. If you looked at the 500/4L IS, it looked great on it's images that it produced. But then if you looked at the same versions through the FSQ, you found lots of faults with the 500/4L IS.

The 500/4L IS isn't a bad lens at all. If you want AF, IS and good focal length, stick with it.

PM01 wrote in post #5768085
Seems like nobody is willing to guess. Wonder why?

MY REVIEW IS UP.

http://www.clublexus.c​om …2432&posted=1#p​ost3622432

Yes, its on that "car forum" again. Deal with it and enjoy the review!

Nice review.

I've noticed before that on that forum there are photogs bouncing around.

Now, too bad there's no comparable forum for the Acura RL.

:p

still like to see if 1.4X stacked on this 200mm compare to a 300mm f/2.8... It will be too heavy to bring both 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 for a shooting, won't it?

300 2.8 isnt really that heavy, i dont think so anyway

hortonsl62 wrote in post #5853152
Nice review.

I've noticed before that on that forum there are photogs bouncing around.

Now, too bad there's no comparable forum for the Acura RL.

:p

woogie off that lexus forum really couldnt get his head around the comparison of the 1.8 to the 2.0 could he? hehehe

I tried my new 200mm 2.8 today.

This one is much better. But cost... let me see. 10x as much (in Hong Kong).

Are the pictures 10x better. Umm, no. But the photos are AWESOME!

But the lens costs 3x the price of the CAR I had when I was a student in Australia.

I hate the OP too ( ).

Great jealousy inducing lens man.

Galaxy99 wrote in post #5860745
still like to see if 1.4X stacked on this 200mm compare to a 300mm f/2.8... It will be too heavy to bring both 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 for a shooting, won't it?

I'm definately going to have to do some experiments with the 1.4x.

It sure would be nice if I didn't need my 300/2.8L IS. That bit of cash would be nice to have in the PayPal account to be sure.

I have a chance to shoot an Ultimate Frisbee tournament in a couple of weeks. I'll try to get some shots with the 200/2L and 1.4X II combination.

its come down in price again at BH 5,3999 now