Pixel Perfect wrote:
I have a $500 Zeiss 85mm that can resolve amazing detail too and the same goes for my macro lens, 135L, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The 200 looks excellent but the price is obscene. I would love that 5 stop IS though.
+1
Every image I've seen from the 200/2L is phenomenal. This is truly a fantastic lens - sure to be a "classic" in the long run and a great update to the f/1.8L.
DoubleNegative wrote:
Every image I've seen from the 200/2L is phenomenal. This is truly a fantastic lens - sure to be a "classic" in the long run and a great update to the f/1.8L.
Really - what have you seen? I've yet to see anything to rival the many great images I have seen from the 1.8, in fact most that I've seen had no real 'wow' factor at all.....
perspective wrote:
This is one example from the Canon 200mm f/2.0L IS lens. This is shot with a Canon 1Ds III camera. I think the capture detail is stunningly good, you can see every single vein in the leaf up front that was in the focal plane.
Is it the 1Ds3 or the 200L? All I am saying is, I get this kind of detail with my 135L, 70-200L, 85L II also, when mounted on my 1Ds3 (and in proper focus ). The 1Ds3 is capable of capturing amazingly fine detail...
Daan B wrote:
Is it the 1Ds3 or the 200L? All I am saying is, I get this kind of detail with my 135L, 70-200L, 85L II also, when mounted on my 1Ds3 (and in proper focus ). The 1Ds3 is capable of capturing amazingly fine detail...
Lord Fluff wrote:
Really - what have you seen? I've yet to see anything to rival the many great images I have seen from the 1.8, in fact most that I've seen had no real 'wow' factor at all.....
I'm inclined to agree. From what I've seen so far, I might stick with the 1.8.
There is also the small matter of 2/3rds (sic) of a stop of light gathering difference between the two, and no amount of stabilisation can freeze your subject. Give me a monopod and 2/3rds stop more light any day (night).
brainiac wrote:
There is also the small matter of 2/3rds (sic) of a stop of light gathering difference between the two, and no amount of stabilisation can freeze your subject. Give me a monopod and 2/3rds stop more light any day (night).
2/3 or 1/3? I think as an erstwhile event photog, I would give up 1/3 stop of maximum shutter speed for IS in a fast lens of that length.
Yes, the new lens is darker, i.e. gives slower shutter speeds, even when both are at f2. Combine that with the specified extra 1/3rd stop, and you get about 2/3rds of a stop more light through the old lens. For this lens, and what I use it for, that matters: http://www.cyberphotographer.com/c/20080628costa/560.jpg
Who on earth uses this lens for shooting landscape or still life? This lens is for sport, theatre, portraits, and wildlife, and if you think those subjects are going to benefit from IS, you're dreaming. If your subject matter stays still, take a 70-200 f4 IS. If it doesn't and light is low, the older 200 and a monopod beat the new one.
Edited by brainiac on Jul 08, 2008 at 06:17 PM GMT
Edited by brainiac on Jul 08, 2008 at 11:04 PM GMT
What is your main use for this lens. You certainly shown how good the lens is. I agree with you, I own the 135, 58 L and it sure does not produce such detail
Perry
My main use is indoor events in mixed and poor lighting. Concerts, theatre, dance, wrestling. I also still think that with a 1.4x (and still perhaps a 2x) that it could also serve as a wildlife lens. I plan to also use it for softball and baseball. Not soccer or football however.
f/1.8 -> f/2 = 1/3 stop, not 2/3. And for that third of a stop, and this focal length, you betcha I'd take IS in trade. I believe in aperture over IS also, but for such a small tradeoff...
moondigger wrote:
Unless I missed something, you didn't mention the shooting aperture you used for the sample image.
Wide open, f/2.
I hesitated posting this because I don't want it to seem like I'm trying to rain on your parade. But there are plenty of lenses in Canon's lineup that I know from experience will resolve detail at least this well, though most of them have to be stopped down to do it.
This is a tree from my yard and I take pictures of those leaves with all my lenses when I buy them. This is the best detail I've seen so far. I did forget to take a picture using the 85mm f/1.2L I used to own, and I suspect that one might have come close at f/1.2 and probably very close at f/2 but since I forgot to test it, this is just conjecture at this point. My 135mm f/2L couldn't really match this at any aperture. Could be copy variation, who knows.
Edit: That's not to say my list is comprehensive. There are other lenses I suspect could resolve to that level of detail but I haven't owned them or shot with them for long enough to say so. They would probably include the 85L, 200/2.8L and all the superteles, plus others I'm not thinking of right now.
Good point about the super teles. It's been forever since I did this test with my 500 f/4 IS. I'll do that test again and see how it compares with the 200 f/2L.
Edited by perspective on Jul 09, 2008 at 02:25 AM GMT
moondigger wrote:
I can't say it's resolving more or less detail than your first crop above, due to the differences I noted previously. But to me it's clearly resolving detail down to the pixel level of the 20D, which as I mentioned before has a higher pixel density than the 1Ds III.
That's good detail capture for sure. I'm not sure how it compares of course. I just want to reitterate that the leaves on the tree I shot have very tiny, hard to distinguish veins I can *barely* make out with my naked eye and even at that I cannot see all of them that are visible in the photo, and they are really clear in the photo. I can only imagine how much better it would do if I put the rig on a tripod and used MLU as this was handheld.
Daan B wrote:
Is it the 1Ds3 or the 200L? All I am saying is, I get this kind of detail with my 135L, 70-200L, 85L II also, when mounted on my 1Ds3 (and in proper focus ). The 1Ds3 is capable of capturing amazingly fine detail...
Excellent question! I was waiting for someone to bring it up. Answer is, I don't know yet. I wanted to do the test with my 5D and then 1Ds this morning but had to get to work. Maybe I will have 5 minutes of peace when I get home and I can do the shots and I can upload them.
). The 1Ds3 is capable of capturing amazingly fine detail...