I dunno... Gotta' throw a monkey into the wrench here:
It's sharper, and the colors are richer. (and I'll probably get one eventually) - but it still has that typical Canon lack of 3D effect.
Granted, it has a little bit more than the old model, but for $2500 you would think Canon could have finally figured it out.
(No, I don't shoot Nikon!)
Yeah, I know. Someone will immediately posy a shot done at 200/2.8 with a massively OOF background, and tell me I'm crazy. - but that will just show that they don't know what plasticity (3D effect) is.
Cableaddict wrote:
I dunno... Gotta' throw a monkey into the wrench here:
It's sharper, and the colors are richer. (and I'll probably get one eventually) - but it still has that typical Canon lack of 3D effect.
Granted, it has a little bit more than the old model, but for $2500 you would think Canon could have finally figured it.
Well I'm not so sure. Some of the posted images have a "Zeiss" look to me. But it's not just that. It's the total package of IS and AF and zoom range with the IQ that has got me interested.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Zeiss and the 3D look it gives but it aint got zoom/AF/IS and this white tube of glass certainly has.
Cableaddict wrote:
I dunno... Gotta' throw a monkey into the wrench here:
It's sharper, and the colors are richer. (and I'll probably get one eventually) - but it still has that typical Canon lack of 3D effect.
Granted, it has a little bit more than the old model, but for $2500 you would think Canon could have finally figured it out.
(No, I don't shoot Nikon!)
Yeah, I know. Someone will immediately posy a shot done at 200/2.8 with a massively OOF background, and tell me I'm crazy. - but that will just show that they don't know what plasticity (3D effect) is.
I don't really agree with this. The great majority of the shots on this thread show pretty good edge contrast, and as a result I think many of them do score well for impression of 3D. The mk1 certainly did not have much of that quality, at least the one I owned. The 3D-ness of this new lens is one of the things getting me excited about it. Take this fantastic shot for instance: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2743/4438918433_d9f69891ff_b.jpg
mohamed alfari wrote:
to buy it i am going to sell my 70-200f4L IS, 200f2.8LII , and now i am think about selling 135L too, do you think its a good idea? because it seem its extremely sharp and 2.8 with IS seems like very good combination.
The lenses you have are all about low weight, small size and low profile. Any 70-200/2.8 lens is the complete opposite. In fact, I sold my 70-200/2.8 IS only because of these reasons. You may want to consider these factors.
Cableaddict wrote:
I dunno... Gotta' throw a monkey into the wrench here:
It's sharper, and the colors are richer. (and I'll probably get one eventually) - but it still has that typical Canon lack of 3D effect.
Granted, it has a little bit more than the old model, but for $2500 you would think Canon could have finally figured it out.
(No, I don't shoot Nikon!)
Yeah, I know. Someone will immediately posy a shot done at 200/2.8 with a massively OOF background, and tell me I'm crazy. - but that will just show that they don't know what plasticity (3D effect) is.
Well many are posting up shots with minimal PPing and with the resizing it minimizes that effect. This thing is as sharp as my 100 macro IS, 400 f5.6 and 70-200 f4 L IS even in the corners (which I suspected it would be on a 1.3X crop). Most of these are from guys like me taking it out of the box, shooting and posting up, the cream has not risen to the top yet trust me.
If you're talking about the Canon line in general then you're right I don't know what you're talking about.
Cableaddict wrote:
Yeah, I know. Someone will immediately posy a shot done at 200/2.8 with a massively OOF background, and tell me I'm crazy. - but that will just show that they don't know what plasticity (3D effect) is.
Canon, what is the deal already?
Hmm, how about this:
http://peltarion.eu/img/statue_1.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/statue_2.jpg
RAW->JPEG in Lightroom using default settings. No modifications except resize.
Cableaddict wrote:
It's sharper, and the colors are richer. (and I'll probably get one eventually) - but it still has that typical Canon lack of 3D effect.
Yeah, I know. Someone will immediately posy a shot done at 200/2.8 with a massively OOF background, and tell me I'm crazy. - but that will just show that they don't know what plasticity (3D effect) is.
I just got mine today. It's late so I haven't been able to do many test shots, but I was wondering: does the IS make intermittent whirring noises? I was expecting a constant low level adjustment sound (which I can hear) but sometimes there is a brief "seek-whirr" kind of noise about as loud as the autofocus mechanism. This "seek-whirr" lasts only a fraction of a second before it goes back to a pretty quiet operation. Just checking if that's normal.
edit: BTW this is my first Canon lens with IS so I'm not sure what to expect exactly. The only other IS lens I have used recently is a 17-55mm EF-S at a store and it was only for a short time and the store was noisy.
Coming from the original version, which like many, I thought was a little lacking at f/2.8 across the whole lens, but especially on the long end........I find this new version to be far superior. I'm not saying the original was bad, not at all.....it's a classic workhorse lens for so many, but as I'm a prime guy first and foremost, with a few zooms for versaltility, I always found the original 70-200 2.8 IS to be lacking at f/2.8 and that always irked me. I can safely say f/2.8 on this new version is simply excellent. So much so, that I'm considering getting rid of my small 200 2.8 II, which the version I of the 70-200 couldn't touch for sharpenss. Then we come to AF. One word......SNAPPY! This thing snaps into focus so fast and accurate that one feels like they just got whiplash. I tried it in low light on my 5D2 and absolutely no hunting. Incredibly confident and competant AF! Anyhow, just thought I'd share my initial observations.
