why canon stops here - why can't they add another stops (f2) to this lens. It would be a killer lens not only kill most canon lenses but all others too
@ mttran: yes, and it would kill your back, too It would be much larger and heavier.
I recently sold my 70-200 of which I was not extremely satisfied and got a 135L, but if the mk II is really this good, I might pick it up again in the future. Good thing is, compared to the announced price of about 2900 euro's, the street price is currently about 2300 which is much better.
mttran wrote:
why canon stops here - why can't they add another stops (f2) to this lens. It would be a killer lens not only kill most canon lenses but all others too
aint going to be small though is it? goto be almost the sigma 120-300 size?
M Vers wrote:
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
I'd agree with the bow on the head & the hand. It would be interesting to know where the active focus point was.
mttran wrote:
Michael, try setting the lens at f5.6 then compare it to any prime/zoom from 70->200. It beats almost all of them, impressive
Almost all lenses perform well at f/5.6.
Let me be a bit evil for a second. A small challenge to anybody interested:
Here are three 100% crops shot with three different lenses - the 70-200 mk2, a 18-135 (7D kit lens) and a 135L. Can you tell them apart? I have stripped the metadata from the files, so no point in trying to cheat
Lens 1:
http://peltarion.eu/img/lens1.jpg
Lens 2:
http://peltarion.eu/img/lens2.jpg
Lens 3:
http://peltarion.eu/img/lens3.jpg
Lenses:
-Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ f/5.6
-Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-f/5.6 @5.6
-Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L @ f/5.6
I have no idea. I used a script to randomize the order so that I wouldn't inadvertently reveal something in my post. I have the key in a text file but I'll wait for a while before I look at it. I wanted the test to be double blind.
Can you explain why you think they are in that particular order?
Check out some unboxing pics I took! I used it for about 15 minutes but it was late so i am going to be putting up some more test pics today from the lens. So far, it is truly awesome
brainiac wrote:
1: 70-200 mk2
2: 18-135
3: 135 f2
I agree with this. Middle shot seems most distorted and has most PF or CA (can't quite tell which). The top shot looks just a liiiitle more distorted. But I definitely wouldn't be surprised if 1 and 3 were mixed up here.
Oh, mostly some wild guessing. I thought the 1st and 3rd were the sharpest, and I expected the 135L to be the sharper of those two. I think I mistakeingly assumed that the the other two lenses were shot full frame, so I looked for extra DOF on the 7D photo. Not sure of the shooting conditions, but if handheld, it would greatly influence the result. Like Braniac, I expect a failing grade.
Looking at the shadow in the window on the left, the intensity of the sun and its position vary a bit between the 3 photos. That, IMO, introduces significantly more change in color and contrast than the difference between the lenses.
Moreover, there are not a lot of detail to look at. The details that are white - such as the window frames - it is not clear whether detail is washed out by the sun or by the lens.
I'd love a repeat of this double-blind test using foliage or a lawn or something with a lot of fine detail.
not only kill most canon lenses but all others too 
It would be much larger and heavier. 
