Good value for money!

I captured this expression from a crowd on a dull day! Am I right to be impressed by the performance of this lens: Canon

70-200mm f2.8L IS II?<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I right to be impressed by the performance of this lens: Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?<br>

<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK for a cheap lens I guess...</p>

<p>The important aspect is not the lens, its the fact it's 'dull'. Because 'dull' is never, ever, ever simply dull.</p>

<p>It's a fine lens but at f/9, almost any lens will look good. I'll wager if you shot the identical image at the same settings with the EF 55-250mm f/4 IS you would have a hard time telling the difference....and still have $2200 in your pocket. So yes, be pleased your lens works as it's designed but impressed? No.</p>

<p>Husain -- use the lens at wider apertures than f/4 and you will really see it shine! <br>

You used ISO 1600 outdoors... YIKES! a 'waste' of photons (you shot at f/9).</p>

<p>You have an IS lens -- 100% obviates the requirement for super high ISO outdoors.</p>

<p>Listen to the "mocking birds" above, they sing something close to truth.<br /> The kind of lighting you have is precisely what one uses on purpose to get lower contrast images.</p>

<p>High ISO, why?</p>

<p>Manual focus and the eye instead of the ear might be in the sharpest plane.</p>

<p>If I do my part right, the results of my 500 f/4L IS always put a smile on my face, I love the performance and image quality that lens gives me. Am I impressed? No, because the lens works as a $6500 lens expected to work! I would be impressed if my $150 55-250 gives me the same result as the 500 f/4L IS.</p>

<p>This is a small image at low resolution (72ppi) of large subject shot at f/9, so it's not much of a test. The dull day does not affect resolution. I agree with the others that a much less expensive lens could have produced very similar results. However, what you have is an extremely high quality lens, so under more demanding conditions--e.g., printing large, shooting at wider apertures, situations that demand faster focusing, etc.--you'll be able to get results that a less expensive lens could not duplicate. I switched from a 55-250 to a 70-200 f/4 IS, and I can often see the difference, but there are shots that would not be easy to distinguish, particularly as a small image on a computer screen.</p>

<p>Dear Husain,<br>

I am not a pro...therefore, my answer is a layman answer. Did you take this picture in manual, AV or TV mode? Why did you use 1/500 f/9 ISO 1600?<br>

I would have shot this in AV mode at f2.8 or f4 with ISO 400 or 800. But again, I am still learning and an just a hobbyist. I have this lens and f2.8 performance is incredible.<br>

Regards,<br>

Gurpreet. </p>

<p>Husain<br>

are you glad asked?</p>

<p>The only time I ever shoot outdoors at ISO 1600 is when I'm in the (rain)forest on a heavily overcast day, which is obviously far form the conditions in which you were shooting, Husain. And I don't think I've ever used an aperture smaller than f/5.6 for an "isolation" portrait. So, no, I can't say from experience whether or not you're right to be impressed with the performance of the lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I right to be impressed by the performance of this lens:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can get the same results at the same settings and distance with my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM at around $1100 less.</p>

You will find that the image becomes much nicer if you shoot wide open, i.e. at F 2.8.

 

By the way the comment above about the image being 72PPI is totally incorrect - one of the very common misunderstandings by

many photographers out there...

 

For an example of an image shot at 200mm, F2.8, have a look at the image on my home page:

 

 

http://www.bellissimaphoto.co.uk/

Your lens certainly does bring the subject closer.

Thanks all for your comments!

Yes, I would not normally use ISO1600 or the settings that I had for outdoors. Few things influenced on this occasion!

This was my second opportunity to use this lens - I have to learn how this lens behaves. On this dull day, with frequent showers, I was capturing the Medieval group dances where the dancers were moving and were all over the place. Previous to this shot I was in the dressing room with ISO1600 setting and forgot to adjust it when came outside – ‘P’ setting did the rest!

I didn’t aim for this particular dancer but cropped from the group of dancers.

<p>"You will find that the image becomes much nicer if you shoot wide open, i.e. at F 2.8."</p>

<p>In what way would this image be improved by shooting at f/2.8?</p>

<p>Looks OK but nothing to write home about. I am not sure why you ask? That lens is a great lens - now all you have to do is to take some great shots with it, and not fuss about whether you have a "good one", or whether it is "sharp". Any failings you see in its performance are probably due to you, the photographer, and not your equipment, so I suggest you just go out and use it and don't fuss. You have an expensive lens for someone who has to ask whether the shot is any good.</p>

<p>"In what way would this image be improved by shooting at f/2.8?"</p>

<p>Depth of field. F2.8 will isolate the subject from the background much more effectively than F9, for example. Much more pleasing out of focus backgrounds makes for much nicer portrait shots, unless you specifically want lots of DOF if you want to capture detail in the background.</p>

<p>Most of my couple shoots, be it pre-wedding shoots or wedding couple portrait shoots, are shot with the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS at F2.8. I may go up to F4 if I want both people in focus and they are slightly offset in terms of depth, e.g. groom holding the bride from behind. For me, there is very seldom a reason to shoot above F4 with this lens.</p>

<p>Assuming a full frame body, the DOF at 15.4 meters, 200mm focal length (as per image in OP) is as follows:<br /> F9 => 3.19 meters<br /> F2.8 => 0.99 meters</p>

<p>It comes down to what you're shooting and what you're trying to capture, but what I said above applies to my style of shooting.</p>

Okay! I'm still indoors because the weather in London is not friendly at the moment! This shot is at f2.8! Focus on the second/third step!<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I can get the same results at the same settings and distance with my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM at around $1100 less.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At F9, I think I could have gotten similar results from a 70-300/4-5.6 IS for ~$2000 less. So if you only ever plan on shooting at f9 (or thereabouts) it's definitely NOT a good value for the money!</p>

<p>Seriously though, it is an excellent lens, and it really shines @f2.8->f3.5. It is vastly sharper (at those apertures) than even the vaunted 70-200/4 L IS. ;-)</p>

<p>Have fun and create beautiful pictures with your new lens.</p>

<p>Slightly envious...</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

<p>I agree with Marcus. This lens, i.e. the F2.8 version (mine is also the IS version) is in a total different league to the 70-200mm F4. I know because I owned the F4 version in the past and the difference is amazing. You get what you pay for, and the gulf in price is justified by every extra penny. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Marcus. This lens, i.e. the F2.8 version (mine is also the IS version) is in a total different league to the 70-200mm F4. I know because I owned the F4 version in the past and the difference is amazing. You get what you pay for, and the gulf in price is justified by every extra penny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marcus was obviously joking.</p>

<p>Furthermore, everything I've heard or read about the f/2.8 IS II vs. the f/4 gives a (marginal) edge to the f/2.8 at some focal lengths, and to the f/4 at others. The <em>only</em> reason to get the f/2.8 over the f/4 is if you need f/2.8-3.5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that's Marcus' trademark 'joke'?</p>

Mark, you may have heard and read many things about the two lenses. I have owned and used both extensively. The

F2.8 version is streets ahead. It is not even a contest. And yes, I am talking about the area where the F4 version

cannot compete, i.e below F4. The quality of portraits shot at F4 doesn't come close to those shot at F2.8. Not to

mention the ability to successfully capture shots in dark churches wide open at very slow shutter speeds. The F4

lens is very good but it is a hobbyist lens, whereas the F2.8 is the professional's choice. Ever seen a pro using an F4

version? Very unlikely.