anthony_chapa Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I am going to purchase a 40d very very soon(this week :)) and I was curious if this lens is sharp wide open. I would want the obvious 70-200IS for sports, but I wont have the money at the moment cause buying the body will set me back a few. I dont mind being without the zoom cause its not a necessity but im curious on the image quality (ive used primes before on my 20d). I have heard good things about this lens I am just wanting some feedback here and possibly some samples or sports or portraits. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Yes it is very sharp wide open and otherwise. Of course most lenses sharpen up as stopped down, faster lenses more so, but it will be sharper than the zoom, it handles the 1.4X and 2X very well although the AF slows down with TCs attached like all lenses. In fact it is so sharp that even with a 1.4X on it is close to the 300 f4L IS, no slouch itself in the sharpens shakes. To put it in context it is not as sharp wide open as the 100mm f2.8 macro but then few lenses are. You can see my own tests on this lens here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/EF_200mm_f2.8L_USM_II_C/index.htm And some web tests here http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_200_28/index.htm and http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_chapa Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 Nice. Thanks for the info Lester! Glad this prime will be good. Perhaps I'll have some money left over to purchase the 50mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexdi Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Sharpest lens I've had wide open. Almost no difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6. Responds extremely well to a teleconverter, either Kenko Pro or Canon 1.4X. No degradation at any aperture. Quick AF, small size, more discrete than the white zooms. The security guards at most venues won't comment. DI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 It's among the best couple lenses I've owned. Ditto David's comments. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I agree with the previous posters. I have the optically identical EF 200mm f/2.8 L <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> Mk.1 and it is insanely sharp wide open. The <abbr title="autofocus">AF</abbr> is fast and accurate and if the light allows fast shutter speeds, I can effortlessly shoot candid portraits of moving pedestrian on the street. The lens is only minimally larger than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> zoom, but has much farther reach and is indeed pretty inconspiciuous. Lacking <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr>, keep an eye on the shutter speeds, but hand-holding is much easier than with the heavier and front-heavier zoom lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I tested the hell out of the EF 200mm/2.8L by way of comparing it to the EF 70-200mm/4L (sturdy tripod, MLU, timer, etc...) <p> One disappointment was the purple fringing (or what ever the proper term for the purple edge-thing is) at @ f/2.8. When I enlarged images on the screen roughly to the equivalent of 8x12 I could spot the problem. I did not get any prints. <p> @ f/4 that problem disappears, and the lens was a bit sharper than the zoom. At f/8-11, you had to look at %100 resolution images to tell any difference. <p> Having f/2.8 at your disposal, and a black barrell? Priceless...well, almost. <p> I ended up getting neither, and got a used 300/4L IS instead. I am glad I did that, because, the new 70-200mm/4L IS lens is a better deal than both despite the price difference (higher ISO and software for noise reduction are O.K. by me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackojones Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 anthony: I LOVE my 200 on my 40D. It's my lens of choice for shooting football and motorcycle racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 >>I was curious if this lens is sharp wide open.<< This is THE sharpest lens I have ever used of that aperture. Here's 100% crop take at f/2.8<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 And here's the full frame shot...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 No purple fringing in that one. Honestly I haven't noticed any after all these years. Now my EF-s 17-55 2.8 is prone to it... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 "One disappointment was the purple fringing " I have not found that, even wide open CA was less than 0.5 pixel on a 20D. Of course on full frame the will probably be a bit more but I would expect it to be well under a pixel and also would expect it to be better than any of the zooms. Are you sure this was not sensor bloom rather than CA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now