70-200 and 300 prime discussions

I'm the type of photographer that always stops my lenses down to attain better

sharpness unless I absolutely have to use it wide open. Usually a f2.8 zoom I

will stop down to at least f4.0. The delema for me is the following:

 

some f2.8L lenses are less sharp at f4.0 than their f4.0 counterparts.

 

According to photozone, 70-200 2.8L IS is less sharp than 70-200 f4.0L at f4.0.

Word is that the new 70-200 f4.0L IS is even sharper than the non-IS version.

 

The same goes for the 300mm prime. The 300mm 2.8L IS is less sharp at f4.0 that

the 300mm f4L IS.

 

If most of the time I'm stopping down the lens to shoot at f4 anyways, then

wouldn't it make more sense to get the f4.0 zooms/primes? I always thought that

the f2.8 versions are sharper than the f4.0 version at f4 but this doesn't seem

to be the case. Are the info on photozone not reliable?

For the 70-200 and the 300 I would say you are quite right - it does make sense to get the f4s. That is not the case with some other lenses like the 35mm f1.4 L vs the f2 where the optical quality of the L is superior across the whole f stop range - at least based on the results I used to get with the 35mm f2.

The long lenses (300mm and up) seem to be designed for maximum sharpness close to wide open, the 300 f4 has peak sharpness at f5.6.

 

The 300 f2.8 has a first rate reputation for sharpness, looking at the photozone results the f2.8 also peaks at f5.6 with almost the same values as the f4 version.

 

At f4 the f4 version is slightly sharper in this test. I would not let that worry you, the difference is very small and would not be noticed in real life, also the measurement uncirtanty and sample variation is probably bigger than the difference.

anectdotally, people consistently report that the f4 70-200 is slightly sharper than the 2.8 versions. perhaps not unexpected given the great optical complexity of the 2.8IS (23 elements, 18 groups) and 2.8 non-IS (18 elements, 15 groups) versus the f4 (16 elements 13 groups). The new f4IS is 20 elements, 15 groups but Canon's projected MTF does look a hair better than the f4 non-IS. Have to wait for the independent tests, I guess.

The photozone.com results are generally consistent with other objective and subjective lens evaluations available on the Web.

 

As previously noticed, the practical differences between the 70-200mm and 300 mm F/2.8 and f/4.0 are not significant. Basically Canon has engineered these lenses so that the only significant determinants between them is whether or not you need the extra speed of the faster lenses, whether or not you can carry the extra weight of the faster lenses and, last but not least, whether or not you can afford them.

There's lots of good reasons to use fast glass - low light shutter speed, VF brightness, DOF

control, TC compatibility. As you point out, with the current crop of Canon L's optical quality

(sharpness, contrast, color rendition) is not one of them. I never did side-by-sides, but my

impression was that my 70-200/4 was a tad sharper than my 2.8 non-IS. -B

Of course, "sharpness" shouldn't be the only factor when judging a lens. Bokhen, color, flare, contrast as well as non image factors like weight, size, costs etc should all be just as important.

 

Good luck!

 

 

aaron

<i>Word is that the new 70-200 f4.0L IS is even sharper than the non-IS version. </i>

<p>

Word? Whose word? The Canon Marketing department?

<p>Are these not the same people who claimed a two-stop dynamic range improvement between the 10D and 20D?

<P>But I agree with the consensus above. These lenses are probably close enough optically that the decision should better be made based upon PURPOSE and PRICE. If you only need F5.6 -> Buying F2.8 is a waste. If you shoot landscapes on tripods -> IS is a waste.

<p>But if you shoot handheld in highschool gyms. . .you need the F2.8-IS.

<P>P.S. Am I the only one who thinks the 70-200/4L-IS is a bit pricy at $1250? (not that I expect this lens to be any lower. . . )

Jim Larson: "P.S. Am I the only one who thinks the 70-200/4L-IS is a bit pricy at $1250? (not that I expect this lens to be any lower. . . )"

 

No, Jim, I'm right there with you, buddy!

 

I've owned a razor-sharp 70-200 f/4L for about 3 years, and was *extremely* satisfied with it ... UNTIL I bought my first IS lens (24-105) last November. Ever since then -- telling myself that the f/2.8 IS version is simply too big and too heavy -- I've been waiting / hoping for Canon to release an IS version of the f/4.

 

When my hopes finally materialized, even though I wasn't surprised by the $1,250 price tag, it didn't take much math to calculate that the f/2.8 IS version is only $350 more (current B&H PSAUG promo); even less when the supplied tripod mount (~ $100 - $125 "value") is thrown into the mix.

 

"Hmmm," I said to myself, "Twice the speed for only 28% more moolah."

 

So I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS this week; in fact, it just arrived less than an hour ago. I took a few "test" shots, and all I can say is UN-friggin'-BELIEVABLE!

 

I'll deal with the extra weight, and make room for this slightly longer lens in my bag. It's worth it! And (bonus), a budding young photographer I know is going to get an excellent deal on an extremely well cared for 70-200 f/4.

 

(P.S. I also bought a 2GB card to augment my 1GB, so I'm finally going RAW! Color me very fortunate and happy and content this weekend. I'm blessed to have so much fine, non-revenue-generating gear to play with...)

All of canon's new lenses are pricey as are their dslrs. They could put a 1 series film body on the market for under $2k. The same 1 series body once it has a FF sensors in it suddenly becomes a $7.5 k machine. Given the 5D is $3k on the market, the sensor probably cost $500 at most. So by putting a $500 sensor in a 1 series body canon are able to jack the price by another $5k.

 

The 70-200 f4L can be had for under $600, so with the IS version you are paying an extra $700 for the IS. This seems pretty crazy to me, but Canon know how to bait and reel the yuppies in.

 

Actually I think the move to digital has created such a buying frenzy, that all the major companies as having an easy time putting up their prices. It is showing up pretty clearly in their bottom lines.

Yup. Canon -bless their capitalistic hearts- know when to raise prices when demand increases.

 

Therefore -> there are starting to be some "bargains" in the lens market. -> older lenses that have not been "updated" and not having their prices jacked up 25%-50% relative to earlier models.

 

Lenses that are in this category include

24-70/2.8L

17-40/4L

and now the 70-200/4L and 70-200/2.8L-IS.

 

My dream lens currently is the 300/4L-IS.

photozone's tests are always based on a 1.6 crop camera which doesn't tell you very much IMO. It is just one point of data.

I think that unless you have a definite need for the low light performance of the f2.8 or the need for the 2x teleconverter, it makes all the sense in the world to get the f4 versions of lenses.

 

As you point out, optically they are excellent, physically they are less burdensome and financially they are a lot less crippling.

 

I have the 70-200/f4 and the 300/f4 IS, both are excellent lenses and deliver outstanding results at f4 on my 20D.

 

Here is a 100% crop of a shot from Monday, he's sitting on a galloping horse.<div></div>

Peter Meade: "... unless you have a definite need for the low light performance of the f2.8 ... it makes all the sense in the world to get the f4 versions of lenses. ... optically they are excellent, physically they are less burdensome and financially they are a lot less crippling."

 

Comparing the current price of the 70-200/2.8IS ($1600 @ B&H) and the announced debut price of the 70-200/4IS ($1250), I concluded that the former lens isn't nearly so "financially crippling" compared to the latter, and made the plunge this week. (And there's at least one other, very good reason besides low light for wanting fast glass.) Having just purchased the 2.8IS after waiting at least a couple of years for the 4IS to appear, I'm a recent convert, so please excuse my zeal.

Jon: Just keep that in mind the next time your significant other comes home with a $500 outfit. "These stuff are significantly better than the ones 30% cheaper!"

Jim: No worries there. I learned a long time ago who's boss! She's very generous though: she offered to get me a 5D for my birthday a couple of months ago. (I declined.)

Jon, she could give the 5D to me!

 

I agree with your point about the price differential between the 70-200 2.8 and 4. In all probability, I would go with the 2.8 IS had I not already bought the f4 non IS. In fact the 4 IS must be about the same price as the 2.8 non IS, that's going to produce some heart searching for people over the next few months.

 

P

>> I'm the type of photographer that always stops my lenses down to attain better sharpness unless I absolutely have to use it wide open.

 

In which lenses do you see that phenomena? I had and have quite a few non-L primes, L primes and L zooms. Seldom were the cases where stopping down resulted in increased sharpness.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.