Jason Stein wrote:
That 135 F2 produces some magical images and has blazing fast autofocus.
I have the 135L and the new 70-200, and truth be told, I don't know what to do with the 135. As I have bought it relatively recently and as I like it very much I don't want to sell it. At the same time in 90% of situations the 70-200 is a better lens to have on the camera. The 135L being a stop faster is an excellent portrait lens - on a FF camera. On a crop it is too long, especially for use indoors. I have a 7D now and I'm thinking about getting a 5DMkII to complement it. If I do, the 135L will probably be on the 5D most of the time. The 5DMkII is better than the 7D for portraits and landscapes but inferior for any type of shot that involves movement. A zoom lens is also suitable for situations where you need to be able to change the framing fast.
A bigger problem is my 100L which is f/2.8 and more or less indistinguishable from the 70-200 @ 100mm f/2.8. It will limit its usefulness severely and the only use I'll have for it is as a macro (and I'm not all that into macro photography).
As a matter of principle, I never sell any lenses but I must admit that the 70-200 has put me in a somewhat difficult position when it comes to my tele primes within that same range. I'm hoping that a setup with two cameras (Crop+FF) will help me make more use of all the glass.
Jason Stein wrote:
Looking at http://the-digital-picture.com and comparing the 70-200 2.8 IS II to the 70-200 F4 IS at F4 it appears the 2.8 IS II is sharper at 135 and 200 but not 70. Comparing the 70-200 2.8 IS II to the 135 F2 at 2.8 shows the 2.8 IS II is not too far behind the 135 F2 which is really saying something.
Hmmm. More pushing me to get this lens. I rarely shoot at 70mm since I have a 24-105 that I use for that range most of the time. Since my f/4 IS is not slouch at 70mm, I'd presume that the MkII is still pretty good.
I for sure will sell my f4 IS but I *may* still hang on to the 135 - although if what you say is true, there is limited reasons to do that. I do really like the 135 on my 5D, but on any of my other bodies (40D or Mk3) it's a tad too long.
What I'd really like to see is some portrait shots - particularly head shots and full body shots at 200 f2.8 on crop and FF. I'm interested to see what the bokeh looks like compared to the 200/2L
Can somebody post full frame (5D II or 1Ds III) images from flat subjects at distance (for example, buildings), cause I want to see how the lens performs in such cases (corner sharpness etc.)?
Thanks !
I'm eager to try this lens and the comments make it sound like it might be what I need. I shoot indoor, low-light events where flash is prohibited. Typical setting is wide open at ISO 3200 and shutter speed +/- 1/50. I owned the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS version 1 but sold it because its resolution didn't suit me. I've used the 135mm f/2.0 and it is good but lacks IS. I owned the 300 f/2.8 and found it too long but otherwise superb. Now, my mainstay is the 200mm f/2.0 and it is fantastic but heavy (same as 300). I'm not interested in how this new version delivers when stopped down. I want it wide open and more often near 200mm than 70mm. I hope my local store will let me fire off a few shots that I can take home and process. If it is even marginally better than the f/4 version, I think I'll like it.
And FWIW, I've never seen CA with the 200mm f/2.0 but I'm not saying it can't occur.
Testing a Second Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens
ISO 12233 Chart results for a second lens copy have been added to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review page. Select "Sample 2" in the ISO 12233 chart tool.
The second lens appears to be even sharper at f/2.8 at the 70mm end and slightly softer at f/2.8 at the long end compared to my first copy of this lens.
Vignetting results and a flare comparison test have also been added to the review. Vignetting performance appears mostly similar to the version 1 lens - slightly improved in the mid-range focal lengths. The flare comparison (posted by request and yet un-narrated - at bottom of the review page) shows another great advantage the new lens holds.
As for my earlier statement about the 200/2 and CA - I stand corrected. I just went thru a few dozen shots and I can't find any. Sorry for that - I processed literally thousands of photos from many different lenses this week, and I got thing somehow confused.
I have a 300 f/4 and I occasionally use it with a 1.4TC but the AF is too slow for sports. I'm interested in comments and experience in using this lens with the 1.4X and 2X TC. If it works well, it would give me a better set of choices than the 300 and it would be a better choice than the 100-400 conceivably.
joeisayo wrote:
Has anyone tried the 70-200 L II with a 1.4X and compared it to the 300 F/4L IS?
I have, and have not found it good. So not good that I actually think that my TC is busted. Before I post yet another raw with this combo I will borrow a 2nd 1.4x TC, and see if that's any better.
stanj wrote:
As for my earlier statement about the 200/2 and CA - I stand corrected. I just went thru a few dozen shots and I can't find any. Sorry for that - I processed literally thousands of photos from many different lenses this week, and I got thing somehow confused.
Yeah, that makes more sense.
That's one of the things that totally amazes me with the 200L. Amazing CA control...I don't expect a zoom to come close to that, but it looks like the 70-200 MKII is decent at that. All in all a big win I think!
I have to say straight out of the box remarkably sharp, after reviewing the lens calibrating, i barely changed settings, the focus point shifts a bit from 70 to 200, which i expected. But the IS is beyond remarkable, i would call it a miracle, for handheld shooting non moving objects. Focus hunt's quick (much bettet than my 24-105 i feel), but i had some problems with white orchids in low light (800 ASA 2.8, 1/20sec).
As for CA, i haven't tested it specifically, but none of the subjects so far showed any, nice glass upgrade.
But i have to say i'm surprised about the weight. I guess it's to be expected, and it's about the same than the previous version, but i won't make this my primary lens anytime soon and pick my battles where i need to pull out this marvel of technology.
Should you buy it: Yes, 100%, if you need that focal length and can deal with the weight.
