So far so good......looks really impressive . But what about some sports action scenes to see AF and high ISO capabilities ? It's also a workhorse for many sportsphotographs........ Thanks
mttran wrote:
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
Did you notice though that when the 70-200 2.8 mkI is stopped down to f/5.6 it appears to be slightly sharper than the mkII in the centre at f/5.6 (both at 200mm). The mkII is much better though towards the corners. But it takes the mkI until f/4 to come close to the mkII wide open.
I don't agree with you that it's much better than the f/4IS. Central sharpness is very similar. If you're concerned with corner sharpness and CA, then yes the II appears somewhat better. But CA isn't a big deal and very easy to fix in post. At least for me personally, the size and weight of the 2.8 is enough reason for me to stick with the f/4 IS. From my experience with the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS, I find very little practical difference between the two at equal f/stops.
Just want to make a comment about some of the points that the sharpness difference won't be significant. I guess it will depend on final output, but I think it's worth considering factors other than sheer image quality that might be better in the mkII and therefore improve the changes for better image quality. For example AF tracking speed and consistency. One might expect this to primarily be the body's responsibility, but from my experiences with the mkI (which I still own though almost never use any more), I had consistently poor results when photographing sports. AF generally had trouble keeping subjects in focus. When I switched to the 70-200 f/4L IS a couple years ago, suddenly AF was much better, much more consistent, to the point that I use it even at night instead of the 2.8 IS mkI. My point is we should pay attention to how much better of an all around performer the mkII is vs. the mkI. If it can AF track better than the mkI, even if the optics weren't any different, it will mean a greater number of in focus images and therefore a considerable improvement. A few days or a week ago Scott Audette essentially confirmed this from his experience with the lens at the Olympics.
Therefore if it is capable of a higher keeper rate, it doesn't really matter how much better the optics are because it's already giving you a greater number of in focus images over the mkI. From my pov this is where the greatest value of the mkII likely lies vs. the mkI
I did some test over the weekend with both MKl and MKll. When handheld the mkII is noticeably sharper than the mkl. This could mean the IS could be working better. When I use a tripod the MKll is still sharper but the difference doesn't appear to be as much.
However what I did notice is the contrast and richness in color is noticeably better in the MKll even via the camera's LCD. Both my friend and I saw the difference.
I shot a wedding over the weekend and i am very happy with this lens
One thing that is becoming evident is that the often maligned 70-200 F4 IS really is a very good lens. The other thing that is obvious is that 70-200 MkII is nothing short of a great lens. Its performance against the 135L and the 200 F2.8 is really quite remarkable for a zoom.
This lens looks nice (...sigh), though it remains heavy, bulky, and conspicuous.
Come on Canon, when can we have a 200 2.8L IS?
And on another note, I find it interesting that most of the samples posted in this thread so far have been made with the 1D Mark IV... Peas and carrots?
Not sure why some people are comparing this lens to the 135 prime. As all of us know, it is much harder to make a zoom with the quality of a prime lens. This lens is as sharp if not sharper than a lot of primes at all focal points. To have a zoom that is sharp throughout the range is truly fantastic. As far as F/4 to F/2.8 I myself will take the extra two stops any day as the lens becomes even more versatile for low light photography.
I got this lens late in the day yesterday and it is truly an amazing piece of glass. I was able to hand hold this lens at 1/10s with my 1D Mark IV for sharp static shots. I can't wait to get out with it and do some really shooting.
Mike Veltri wrote:
As far as F/4 to F/2.8 I myself will take the extra two stops any day as the lens becomes even more versatile for low light photography.
garyvot wrote:
I agree with you... but I was a bit surprised by this comment. I always thought this lens had one of the better reputations among zooms...?
(It's not my favorite zoom, but not because of a lack of sharpness or contrast.)
Among people who actually have the lens it has a great rep. Among some of the posters here, it is often maligned for not being F2.8 (no kidding), for being much more expensive than the non-IS (you get what you pay for) and for using plastic in its construction (mine has held up very well).
I am glad to see that Canon seem to have tried to emulate the Pipe IQ. I am not sure if they've managed to attain that sort of a design goal fully.....we shall see.
The future will also show if the lens model is susceptible to copy variation in IQ as well as focus calibration. Furthermore, in such handsomely priced lens, one would expect freedom from various mechanical defects such as bubbles/inclusions in glass elements, ill fitting hood, etc.
Mike Veltri wrote:
Not sure why some people are comparing this lens to the 135 prime.
Because it's within the focal range of the 70-200 and generally recognized as an excellent lens. As far as sharpness goes, the're very close. At f/2.8 the 135 has a very slight advantage. On sharpness alone I doubt may would be able to tell the difference @ f/2.8 even when looking at 100% on a well calibrated monitor.
There is one area though where the 135 beats the 70-200 with a vengeance - bokeh. The differences may be ever so subtle but they do have an impact. The extra stop does its bit as well (although not for low-light shooting where the IS of the 70-200 is vastly superior).
These were shot handheld (with a 7D) and have been converted from RAW using default setttings (i.e. no manual modifications). The focus is on the bicycle handlebar.
I should add one thing - I shot about 10 images for each settings with single frame point expansion AF (center point). I had a fairly awkward angle to my subject. In the case of the 70-200 I got 9 sharp images while in the case of the 135 I only managed to get 3 each (@f/2.8 and @f/2.0). It wasn't a question motion blur but of AF misses. Granted, it wasn't the easiest AF task but still, the 70-200 managed to focus correctly whereas the 135 did not. (It could be my sample of the 135 as I've had focusing issues in the past, with just a bit too many misses a bit too often. I blamed it on the 7D, but it seems to have no such problems with the 70-200).
Thanks for the info on the previous Flourite Canons. Flourite is expensive (actually it's a crystal that is "grown") and while Nikon wants us to believe their ED glass (and Nano coating) is as good (better) I am suspicious.
