EF 70-200L IS 2.8 vs Leica APO Telyt-R 3.4 (100% crops)

wickerprints wrote in post #8535014
It is meaningless because it is obvious. It doesn't give any insight other than what one already knows. Furthermore, it is not merely the zoom vs. prime comparison--it is as much about the fact that one lens is designed with f/3.4, and the other is f/2.8. That is a critical piece of information.

Now if you want to compare, say, a f/4 zoom with an f/1.4 prime stopped down to f/4, maybe we might find something interesting. But as it is, the smaller max aperture and fixed focal length makes such a comparison pointless.

Again, obvious to you is not obvious to others. If you know it, great, move on and let the people who don't learn from it. It doesn't mean that the test is meaningless as a whole. I for one found this test interesting.

wickerprints wrote in post #8535014
And because the OP then asked if his 70-200/2.8 was up to spec based on the results he is observing, I replied that basing that hypothesis on this particular comparison is also meaningless because the lenses are of entirely different design. Do you have a problem with that? Because if so, last time I checked this forum wasn't just for people who agree with each other and only want to say encouraging things even if they're not true. I said what was factually correct. The OP needs to do a test chart if he wants that question answered.

As I read the OP's first post, I don't see where he asked if his 70-200 2.8 was up to spec. I'm not sure if he edited his post after you've read it. If he did, then you are correct. This isn't the best way to check if his lens is up to spec or not. He should use test charts in a controlled environment to see if his lens is in good working condition.

And no, I don't have a problem with what you decide to do with your time. If I did then I'll probably go around bolding every other sentence that's directed at you because I feel that what I say is absolutely true and needs no further support.

k.lee wrote in post #8536886
As I read the OP's first post, I don't see where he asked if his 70-200 2.8 was up to spec. I'm not sure if he edited his post after you've read it.

I didn't.

My 70-200 is great as it is, very sharp in the center and I don't care much about the borders since I use it 99% for portraits.
Anyways, after this test, I didn't expect the prime to be so much sharper in the corners. So I just wanted to warn you all that my copy of the zoom may not be the best there is around, so take this test with a grain of salt.

I don't shoot charts, I couldn't care less.

A little more about the prime.

This lens is a military design originally made for the US Navy.
Mine is the first version, not actually mint conditions after 30 years of abuse, and that's why I was a bit worried before testing...

It is very light (750g) and compact (compare the barrel diameter to the lens mount). The hood is built-in, slide type, very convenient.

The wide open f/3.4 is about half a stop slower than f/2.8, but this lens is also unusual because stopping down is only going to reduce vignetting while sharpness and contrast will stay pretty much the same until diffraction kicks in.

I cannot detect any sign of color fringing, while vignetting is very annoying but can be easily corrected in PP.

Manual focus at 180/3.4 is a lottery without Live View, I hope the Eg-S focusing screen helps (should be delivered in a few days).

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks for sharing and ignore the cranky comments. For me, it shows how sharp the APO-Telyt-R is, not how soft the 70-200/2.8 IS (yes, your copy may have issues).

It's an amazing prime, like that 100% crop on the Contax Zeiss 100mm/2 Planar thread. Which adapter are you using it with?

shameful showing from the 70-200 F2.8L IS!

i think the F4L IS will fare better though..

thanks for the comparison, very interesting.

the 2.8's @F3.5 almost look like what happens when you leave IS on while on a good tripod.

L_F_L wrote in post #8541866
Which adapter are you using it with?

The reseller didn't know the name and it has no markings on it.
However, it looks a lot like the Fotodiox.
There is no focus confirmation.

DHMN wrote in post #8542978
the 2.8's @F3.5 almost look like what happens when you leave IS on while on a good tripod.

All f/3.x shots were 1/2000 sec with the camera placed on a fence.
The very few times I had IS problems the entire picture was affected, while in this test the center of the frame ("STOP" sign) is very sharp.
Could it be a different IS issue though ?

Jaetie wrote in post #8542405
shameful showing from the 70-200 F2.8L IS!

i think the F4L IS will fare better though..

UPDATE
--------
I just tested today a perfect copy of the 70/200L IS f/4 on the same subject vs my f/2.8 and their performance is identical (apart from a little less chromatic aberration on the f/4 which is barely noticeable).

It looks like the shots of the 70-200 at f3.5 have some camera shake or something ... they are not representative of what I've seen elsewhere. Did you use a cable release and mirror lockup?

lbeck wrote in post #8591418
It looks like the shots of the 70-200 at f3.5 have some camera shake or something ... they are not representative of what I've seen elsewhere. Did you use a cable release and mirror lockup?

No cable release.. but 1/2000 second with IS should be ok (and the Telyt does not have IS).
All shots used Live View on a 5D2, so MLU is not needed.

The image center is perfect with all lenses. I think there is no human error.

To be fair, this does not look like a sharp copy of the 70-200/2.8. My copy is sharper at 2.8 (with shallower DOF of course) than the ones above at 8. The photo of the hubcap looks pretty bad.

Nice post, thank you. Just remember, If you post a review of a 3rd party lens that (based on your observations) seems to have better IQ than Canon L glass your gonna get some blow back here on this site...it's inevitable.

But the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is not as sterling a performer as the 70-200 f/4L IS...it is comparing the worst of the the Canon 70-200's (f/2.8L IS) vs. the Leica

70mm f/2.8
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM at f/2.8: : 1923 Center, 1688 Edge
Sigma AF 70mm f/2.8 EX DG at f/2.8: 1990 Center, 1839 Edge
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L at 70mm f/2.8: 1794 Center, 1493 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS at 70mm f/2.8: 1746 Center, 1675 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS at 70mm f/4: 2090 Center, 2004 Edge

70mm f/5.6
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM at f/5.6: : 2014 Center, 1993 Edge
Sigma AF 70mm f/2.8 EX DG at f/5.6: 2064 Center, 1976 Edge
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L at 70mm f/5.6: 1976 Center, 1808 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS at 70mm f/5.6: 1988 Center, 1866 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS at 70mm f/5.6: 2101 Center, 2058 Edge

135mm f/2.8
Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM at f/2.8: 2058 Center, 1909 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS at 135mm f/2.8: 1821 Center, 1668 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS at 135mm f/4: 2120 Center, 2036 Edge


135mm f/5.6
Canon EF 135mmf/2 L USM at f/5.6: 2129 Center, 2103 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS at 135mm f/5.6: 2026 Center, 1928 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS at 135mm f/5.6: 2138 Center, 2093 Edge


200mm f/2.8
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM at f/2.8: 1784 Center, 1651 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS at 200mm f/2.8: 1623 Center, 1597 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS at 200mm f/4: 2024 Center, 2018 Edge


200mm f/5.6
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM at f/5.6: 2067 Center, 1976 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS at 200mm f/5.6: 1835 Center, 1776 Edge
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS at 200mm f/5.6: 2122 Center, 2118 Edge