I've had several of the DO's and they are not good wide-open performers. F8 is much better. And in real-world use they are fine. I almost didn't post the DO shots because it really does show the DO as a sub-performer. These are about year old and from a 1Ds -
The DO is a great choice for range in a compact package. There have been some threads lately talking about all the things you "can't" shoot. I don't think the DO has to be handle like it's handicapped, it just requires different post-processing. And in tests like this I'm not post-processing, so the DO is at a big disadvantage.
The 70-200/4 IS + 1.4x isn't a lens I can carry in a coat pocket while on vacation. Whereas the DO is the same length as a 17-40L, but the DO does weigh more than the 17-40L. If size & weight are not important and optical performance is the top goal, then 70-200/4 IS is a better choice IMHO. And I have no need for the 200 F2.8 II. The 200 2.8 II has slightly more contrast, but not "that" much more.
The 200 will be returned, but I haven't decided on the DO yet. If we go to Cowboy's or Rangers game, there's no way I'll get the 70-200 past security. Whereas the DO is a non-issue.
EB - Here you go... I wasn't paying much attention on these and this why I didn't want to post them... But since the DO is getting a bad-rap, top is 70-200/4 IS @ 200mm F11, bottom is the DO @ 210mm (oops) F11. I should have re-centered the focus point, so I think DO is focused on the house behind the little building. The DO shot a quick micro-contrast edit and levels tweak; both were had USM @ 85,.3,0 -
And here's a 100% crop from that scene. The differences are obvious, but 100% crops are never kind You could pull out some details in the DO shot with post processing (these are UNPROCESSED crops).
Okay - I'm doing defending the DO Nor will I be posting anymore 70-200 v 70-300 DO shots. We'll get way off topic. We're headed to San Francisco next weekend, so if the weather cooperates, the 70-200/4 IS will see some real pictures - mostly landscapes.
I bought the 70-300 DO shortly after it came out. i sold it because I did not think it was a good performer. Two months later the person who i sold it to wrote me back and said he had a second copy and showed me some of the differences. His second copy was much better so I bought the lens again and thought it was very decent. It was not as good as my 70-200 L. Like any of the DO lenses, it did not render micro contrast extremely well. On the FF sensors it was not tack sharp at the edges. I think it is a good lens, the IS was outstanding. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the 70-200 is optically better. So there is a tradeoff.
heres some handheld shots with the 1.4, processed with dpp neutral mode and no sharpening. I think the 1.4 canon TC takes a little out of the quality, moreso than with the 400 5.6.
Thank you for the test. The zoom is a nice lens, but the color saturation and the blur are all better with the fixed 200. The 200 is half the money with better IQ, yes the zoom is a zoom and the fixed lens will never be a zoom, so the zoom has better IQ per se @ 70-199 than the zoom and the fixed has better IQ than the zoom @ 200 2.8. The new zoom is a nice little lens of course has IS and very nice IQ, but if you shoot 90% of your exposures @ 200, the fixed focal is the way to go.
If you need F2.8, then 200/2.8 II is the right choice. With the 135L I don't need a faster 200 --- I like having it, but I don't need it. After having a 200/1.8, the 200/2.8 II's bokeh isn't all that impressive.
I've found the 70-200/4 IS bokeh more pleasing thus far because of the rounded aperture blades. The 200/2.8 II produces the octagon shape which starts to get some definition around F4 if there are specular highlights.
I have nothing against the 200/2.8 II, it's an outstanding performer for very little money. Though, for my tastes I prefer the 135L over the 200L (F2.8).
EB-1 wrote:
Why so many macro usage patterns? Am I the only one more interested in far field?
EB
My experience is that with Canon lenses when they are good at close range they are good at infinity. Not so with 3d party lenses!
Does your experience differ?
My experience does not confirm your good at close range = good at infinity experience. One exception to this was the 17-40mm f4L zoom. I found it excellent at close range but fair at infinity. Different lenses are optimized for different parameters.
My experience with Canon lenses, especially zooms, is that image quality is all over the place and one never knows what to expect. I've had all three previous 70-200s Canons (5 total copies) and they have various limitations, but are quite good for zooms.
You could pull out some details in the DO shot with post processing (these are UNPROCESSED crops).