I recently purchased a 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) and I have to say I wasn't wowed at all.
I am still deliberating what to do with the lens. I just don't think it is as sharp as others have said it is. but it might be my inabililty to produce a good picture, or maybe the camera itself just ins't sharp. I just find myself using Smart Sharpen to get it where I want it and for some nagging reason I don't think I should have to do that.
Sedalia636 are you using a filter?, neither of my 70-200's liked 'em one bit.
If not I'd think about returning it because it's a sick sharp sucker for most.
The 135/2L has a slightly bigger WOW-factor than the 300/2.8L IS because of its small size. It's very portable and doesn't draw as much attention as the 300/2.8L IS does. They're both WOW optically.
My "wow" lens is my 10-22. Not just because of the perspective it affords, but also because of the sharpness, color, and contrast. It is the lens that gives me the most "3-D" look, or one with the most "pop."
Sedalia636 wrote:
I recently purchased a 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) and I have to say I wasn't wowed at all.
I am still deliberating what to do with the lens. I just don't think it is as sharp as others have said it is. but it might be my inabililty to produce a good picture, or maybe the camera itself just ins't sharp. I just find myself using Smart Sharpen to get it where I want it and for some nagging reason I don't think I should have to do that.
As Trenchmonkey suggested to you already, the 70-200 f2.8 has had very few "'soft" copies reported. Typically, no postprocessing should be required to get very fine images regarding clarity, colours, bokeh and all, starting with f/2.8.
Once a good fucus is established and the camera/lens is reasonable steady, the lens should be a ripper. Filters ? I suppose a bad/unclear kind can degrade the lens. I use B&W UV ones....never had a problem.
If you have covered all these bases already, the next step is obviously a trip to Canon service.
400/2.8L IS- Wow. Perfect optics, IS, form, weather-sealing, everything. One of the primary reasons I shoot Canon, because someday I will own this monster. Of course, someday is a few years off...
70-200/2.8L IS- With it, basketball is paradise. Nuff said.
300/2.8L IS- Not so much the optics (kind of expected, not as hard to pull off as 400 2.8) as the overall design, fit, and finish. So nice to handhold, so functional, so durable. This is where my 200/1.8 really disappointed me, it just didn't "feel" right. That, and I can get 420/4 really reliably, whereas I don't need the 1.8 as much in college.
135L, no question...Opened up the box on Christmas morning, popped it on the camera, and my jaw dropped from the bokeh...I can look at images from this lens for hours, it's just a present to the eyes. Besides that, 2.0 has gotten me out of many fixes. I can't wait to try it out under our school's shady stadium lights...
85L was my first genuine WOW experience. The first wide open portraits I shot with it just killed me even though I'd seen and read plenty about it before I took the plunge.
45 tilt/shift was my second OMFG lens. I'd been trying to duplicate tilt effects in Photoshop for years when I finally decided to buy a t/s lens back in January. I fell in love with it after the very first frame. I understand some people use it to, like, correct stuff or something? I just make things blurry with mine, but then again I've also read you can do something called "stopping down" with the 85L...
