Using the above site, at wide open - 70-200LIS II is equal and better than most canon prime 85,100, 200L2.8 and much better than 70-200f4LIS> it's performance just like 135L& better. No wonder why $2500.00, This is the best canon zoom
The new 70-200 f2.8 IS II and the 70-200 f/4 IS look about the same to me....(still, the fact that the f/2.8 looks as good as the 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4 is impressive)....
brainiac wrote:
Hmm. Interesting. Thanks. How about at each end of the range, and in the middle?
Sure,
70mm:
http://peltarion.eu/img/b_70.jpg
140mm:
http://peltarion.eu/img/b_140.jpg
200mm:
http://peltarion.eu/img/b_200.jpg
I'm not sure this will tell you much though as many other parameters have at least as great effect as the focal length. For instance distance and angle between the focal plane and the light source. After looking at hundreds of photos I can conclude that I like the 135L bokeh better in general, but if you asked me to quantify, I would not be able to.
I really like the look of this bokeh: sharp-edged discs which are evenly lit across the whole circle. It doesn't get any better. I expect very 3D results.
rscheffler wrote:
Did you notice though that when the 70-200 2.8 mkI is stopped down to f/5.6 it appears to be slightly sharper than the mkII in the centre at f/5.6 (both at 200mm). The mkII is much better though towards the corners. But it takes the mkI until f/4 to come close to the mkII wide open.
I don't agree with you that it's much better than the f/4IS. Central sharpness is very similar. If you're concerned with corner sharpness and CA, then yes the II appears somewhat better. But CA isn't a big deal and very easy to fix in post. At least for me personally, the size and weight of the 2.8 is enough reason for me to stick with the f/4 IS. From my experience with the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS, I find very little practical difference between the two at equal f/stops.
Just want to make a comment about some of the points that the sharpness difference won't be significant. I guess it will depend on final output, but I think it's worth considering factors other than sheer image quality that might be better in the mkII and therefore improve the changes for better image quality. For example AF tracking speed and consistency. One might expect this to primarily be the body's responsibility, but from my experiences with the mkI (which I still own though almost never use any more), I had consistently poor results when photographing sports. AF generally had trouble keeping subjects in focus. When I switched to the 70-200 f/4L IS a couple years ago, suddenly AF was much better, much more consistent, to the point that I use it even at night instead of the 2.8 IS mkI. My point is we should pay attention to how much better of an all around performer the mkII is vs. the mkI. If it can AF track better than the mkI, even if the optics weren't any different, it will mean a greater number of in focus images and therefore a considerable improvement. A few days or a week ago Scott Audette essentially confirmed this from his experience with the lens at the Olympics.
Therefore if it is capable of a higher keeper rate, it doesn't really matter how much better the optics are because it's already giving you a greater number of in focus images over the mkI. From my pov this is where the greatest value of the mkII likely lies vs. the mkI
Our comments here is just from the charts, real world shooting is different stories and i can't agree more with you. The points i try to make here that canon has done a fine job to create much better zoom ever based on the data we have available
michael49 wrote:
The new 70-200 f2.8 IS II and the 70-200 f/4 IS look about the same to me....(still, the fact that the f/2.8 looks as good as the 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4 is impressive)....
DocsPics wrote:
I can't beleive I'm selling one of my coveted converted Contax Ns to get this lens.....what is wrong with me for crying out loud?
Don't do it for god's sake, Gary.
Otherwise you are likely to be smitten by soul damaging regrets.....and remember, my therapy providing sessions are not cheap.
Hrow wrote:
One thing that is becoming evident is that the often maligned 70-200 F4 IS really is a very good lens. The other thing that is obvious is that 70-200 MkII is nothing short of a great lens. Its performance against the 135L and the 200 F2.8 is really quite remarkable for a zoom.
brainiac wrote:
If I may say so, this looks like exceptionally good contrast/veiling flare performance. I'm getting more and more excited about this lens.
Many many lenses, even really expensive ones produce a certain amount of veiling flare in situations like this. This example looks exceptionally free of veiling flare contrast-loss judging by the shadow texture in her hair.
The blue fringes are not CA, they are the result of the red and green channels ceasing to clip. This happens because the blue cast of the window light blends in the slight bokeh around sub-optimally focussed edges. You just don't see the blueness in the highlight because the sensor can't hold it. The hair darkens it and therefore renders stronger colour. Note that the fringe is a consistent blue on both sides of her wisps of hair and on both sides of her head, and the top, which would not be consistent with CA. This is a sign of a lens working well. This has been discussed severally on the alt forum. Here's an example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/597185/79#6334182...Show more →
yeah the lens seems like a contrast monster, even in cases where many would produce a lot of veiling flare
(side note: CA that is longitudinal can well occur same on all sides!! that said i don't think i really see any of that here, but then again by f/6.3 many lenses that have it are already losing it, we'd need to see some f/2.8-f/4 shots preferably to tell if they got rid of it, the mark i 2.8 IS had quite a lot of it, more than f/4 IS and f/2.8 non-IS, maybe as much as the sigma 70-200)
Jonesy wrote:
Well prob doesn't...Not an easy task chasing a 1 yr old around inside
+100
My niece has been the most challenging subject to get in perfect focus, next to flowers on a windy day, they have so much energy.
well just looked at the pics of your son...taken on the 10th same settings as photos later in the thread the ones of your son are spot on in focus...just want to know if you had adjusted the Micro-focus in camera because later shot are not in focus..the geese ect...
Jonesy wrote:
Well prob doesn't...Not an easy task chasing a 1 yr old around inside
I can't tell by the images small size if you nailed focus on the eyes (doesn't look to be) but the bow and her hand are definitely in focus--the eyes acceptably so for f/2.8 at that distance, but again its tough to tell. Great shot regardless
