Like the sun, for instance. I realize the light coming from the window is bright, but its diffused. Typically you would not see any flare in a shot like that unless the sun were in view or there was a refractive element within view.
Jonesy wrote:
Used mine at an event I was hired to shoot at yesterday.Not sure if this is what you were looking for but there is a bright window in the background. I don't see any flare.
If I may say so, this looks like exceptionally good contrast/veiling flare performance. I'm getting more and more excited about this lens.
As for flare, not sure why you would have any in that shot regardless--the lens was not subjected directly to a bright light source.
Many many lenses, even really expensive ones produce a certain amount of veiling flare in situations like this. This example looks exceptionally free of veiling flare contrast-loss judging by the shadow texture in her hair.
I thought the new coatings/elements were supposed to take care of CA...makes me wonder what that shot would look like if it were at f/2.8.
The blue fringes are not CA, they are the result of the red and green channels ceasing to clip. This happens because the blue cast of the window light blends in the slight bokeh around sub-optimally focussed edges. You just don't see the blueness in the highlight because the sensor can't hold it. The hair darkens it and therefore renders stronger colour. Note that the fringe is a consistent blue on both sides of her wisps of hair and on both sides of her head, and the top, which would not be consistent with CA. This is a sign of a lens working well. This has been discussed severally on the alt forum. Here's an example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/597185/79#6334182
I ordered it a month ago and just got mail from the store, that the delivery date can't be estimated, because the distributor didn't inform them on status. Since months Canon is trying to dictate prices in Germany, by just supplying selected dealers who sell stricly at MSRP or very close to it. Which sucks, because I want it badly after seeing this and I'm close to giving in and hate them for it!
I'm going to be in for one of these. This is exactly what I've been waiting for in this zoom. I have the f/4 IS and thought it was a big upgrade over the already excellent f/4. This seems to be an even bigger jump in sharpness across the frame. I'll probably put my f/4 IS and my 135 f/2 up for sale and buy this one.
I do not believe there is a discernible IQ improvement in print. I do believe that there are those who try to convince themselves there is.
Notice that I said "in print". I am not talking about 300% magnification on a calibrated monitor. And even then my guess is that the difference would be negligible. However, for some the extra stop would be worth the premium.
John Power wrote:
I do not believe there is a discernible IQ improvement in print. I do believe that there are those who try to convince themselves there is.
Notice that I said "in print". I am not talking about 300% magnification on a calibrated monitor. And even then my guess is that the difference would be negligible. However, for some the extra stop would be worth the premium.
I did some print tests on my el cheapo Canon Pixma 5200 printer which is not so great when it comes to resolution, or color reproduction..or anything actually. I did a comparison between the 85mm f/1.8 wide open and the 70-200 mk2 @ f/2.8. On A4 sized prints it was easy to see the difference - the 70-200 was discernibly sharper in every print (18 Mpixel). Of course, I had to look closely - from a meter away it would not have been easy to spot the differences.
Now if you check out the difference between the 85 and the 70-200, both wide open on the digital image test charts you'll see that the difference in IQ is similar to the one on the test chart for the 70-200 Mk2 vs Mk1.
You have to look for the differences in the prints, but they are there and my printer does not exactly represent the height of printing technology. Do a proper 300dpi print and I'm fairly sure that the differences - especially at 200 mm - will be quite noticeable on A4 sized prints.
Is it worth the extra money? Possibly not, but you are forgetting one thing: crops. I don't know about you but I often crop my photos in order to improve the composition, to cut out some unwanted element or simply to enlarge some part of the photo. That's where - at least for me - the extra quality matters. So you don't have to print your stuff (I seldom do) to take advantage of higher IQ .
A couple threads based on the same topic were merged together to form this Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS Master thread. Thanks for your understanding. Best, Fred
brainiac wrote:
Wow. The difference is also great at 70mm. This looks very good.
Using the above site, at wide open - 70-200LIS II is equal and better than most canon prime 85,100, 200L2.8 and much better than 70-200f4LIS> it's performance just like 135L& better. No wonder why $2500.00, This is the best canon zoom
:
