Heavier than f/4 but not amazingly so. I was expecting something huge. Really not too much bigger. However with the f/4 on the 20D/grip, the camera was still 'dominant'. Now the lens seems to be carrying the camera, not the other way around. The left hand is definately supporting more weight. Shooting at 200mm seems identical in terms of hand 'shake' - really at the end of my useful non-tripod shooting. Even at 200, I shake like the dickens (can you say monopod?)
My ability to whip the camera into 'action position' is obviously slowe. I need to start lifint weights.
I shot a bunch comparing my flawless F/4 to the lens, both at F/4, near, far, etc. The pictures are almost indistinguishable. Of couse I think the f/2.8 is a hair sharper at the edges, but it was not a 'blinded' study. Maybe on a tripod, the diff would be clearer.
At f/2.8, the lens is still really sharp. I would say at 70 mm, the lens clearly is sharper than the tamron 25-75 at f/2.8 - really quite usable.
Focusing speed is ridiculous fast. Now if it would stop raining, I would go to the soccer field...
Only longish prime I own is the 85 f/1.8 so I cant say. I always adjust color and contrast in PS anyway, so that's not as big an issue for me as sharpness and speed. I think my bases are well covered by the complement of lenses I have for now. I thought about the 200 mm f/2.8, but the versitility of the zoom won out.
Eric,
I have one more question and may be a stupid one;
Do you think it is better to shoot at say; 70, 85,100, 135, 200 on 70-200 lens than odd lengths like 73, 92, etc.?
I am not an Optical Engineer so I don't know if zoom lenses are designed to perform at classic lengths
MarkM6 wrote:
Will,
I am sure the question has been asked many times before; how is the color and contrast of the 70-200 at 135/f5.6 comepare to 135L at f5.6?
The concern I have with the Zoom lenses are the color and contrast, not the sharpness.
~Mark
Just fired off a couple with each. .colors pretty even, contrast 135L a tad better.
The sun's playin' the old "in/out" so hardly the best of conditions and I rarely shoot
past f4 with either so I have no database for you.
Mark, on the surface, it seems like the answer is NAH. But I am also clueless. Will when you say you rarely shoot past F4, do you mean wider than or narrower than??
I just paid a large sum of money to shoot wider than F/4.
elader wrote:
I just paid a large sum of money to shoot wider than F/4.
Wide open! The 70-200 is ridiculously sharp wide open, and I prefer thin DOF. And Will, the sweet spot on mine is from 70 to 195.
When I am shooting sports I like the "human monopod" position - down on my right knee with my left elbow on top of my left knee. I like the maneuverability that gives me, so I only use the monopod when it is getting dark or out shooting wildlife.
