jbfaulconer wrote:
I vote for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. How can you vote against this zoom lens. If you look at most pro sports shooters, they carry either the 300L or the 400L and then they also carry the 70-200f/2.8L IS.
or they carry the 70-200 2.8 non-IS
if you shoot FF and not much sports the f/4 IS is VERY nice
much more compact
Peter I haven't owned as many zooms as you, 16-35,17-40,24-70,50-200,70-200 (2.8 and 4 both Non IS), 100-400. Each had its strengths but I trimmed down my collection to just 17-40,24-70, 50-200 and 70-200 f4 mainly because I shoot primes more often. The zooms I kept were the ones always grabbed - the 17-40 and 70-200 both had great IQ, color and quick to focus and worked great in Antarctica. The 24-70 was my first zoom lens and has never let me down. But even with your statement earlier the 80-200 may be one of the best but the 50-200L beats it hands down. It ha a much better zoom range it goes all the way down to 50.
And here is the picture to prove the 50-200L is by far the best zoom ever, it was so good Canon discontinued it and brought out the 80-200L drainpipe. Wide open and 12mm extension tube at 50mm.
Princess of Acadia indeed.
Robert, that beaver shot looks very sharp, too bad you photoshopped a toque on the happy rodent. So it does look like the 50-200L is good.....plus, it has a fluorite element in it to boot.
Since 1992 when I transitioned from FD to EF, I've gone through each iteration of the 20-35/17-35/16-35 mkI/16-35 mkII and 80-200/70-200 2.8/70-200 2.8 IS/70-200 f/4 IS. For me each new version has had sufficient improvements to make the upgrade worthwhile. With the UWA zooms it was initially the broader range and USM, then improved sharpness. With the tele zooms it was USM and the ability to use TCs, then IS, then the smaller, lighter, sharper, all around better performing f/4 IS.
I haven't owned any other Canon zooms, so from this set I would vote for the 70-200 f/4 IS. Contrary to many others here, I was never really that happy with the 2.8 IS, especially for sports. AI-Servo AF was never consistent and often lagged in spontaneous situations, it was a bit soft at the long end and worsened with the 1.4x TC. The weight savings of the f/4 IS was a nice surprise and I found I could much more quickly raise the camera & lens for spontaneous near action shots when switching from the main camera mounted to a long tele prime. And it tracks action more consistently, even in lower light situations. It's less flare prone in backlit situations and takes the 1.4x TC very nicely.
The question raised earlier was why do you see so many sports photographers using one of the 2.8 versions on the sidelines? Having for many years used that lens, I would say it's because it's very difficult to let go of the f/2.8 security blanket. It's what's familiar and works 'good enough' for many photographers, me included until two years ago... and people are definitely creatures of habit. The 2.8 was not really that bad of a lens and I got great results using it on static subjects. It's just that it could be better in light of what Canon was able to do with the f/4 IS. I also believe that as high ISO performance improves with each camera generation, f/2.8 becomes less and less of a must have feature.
I remember the 'drain pipe' though don't really have a strong recollection about it's optical quality. It would be interesting to have a look at one again and compare it against the current crop of lenses. One thing I feel has changed in Canon lenses over the last 20 years is a shift from a somewhat moderate contrast, gentler image rendering, to one that seems more clinical. I see it in the higher contrast of the 70-200 f/4 IS. The first 'newer' Canon lens to give me this impression was the 135L back when it was introduced.
Thanx for that great perspective, Ron.
My 70-200 f2.8 IS is not a sharpness champ wide open at 200mm either, but I must say that my copy focuses fast and well on 1DMkIIN's. In fact, I don't mind using it even on low light BIF in Servo AF mode where the lens has done well for me.
70-200 f/2.8L IS, is clearly better than the 70-200 f/4L twins especially in the range f/2.8 to f/3.99.
Depends what your criterion is for best. I own the 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 100-400L zooms and am lucky enough that I have good copies of all of them. If I had to choose one, though it'd be the 17-40L though. Optically maybe not the best, but for one of my loves of landscape photography it wins hands down. Now for BIF's or close-ups it'd be the 100-400L. For generic walk around, the 24-105L and for lower light, and a bit of this and a bit of that the 70-200. The best zoom is the one that gets you the shot you're after IMO.
PetKal wrote:
Thanx for that great perspective, Ron.
My 70-200 f2.8 IS is not a sharpness champ wide open at 200mm either, but I must say that my copy focuses fast and well on 1DMkIIN's. In fact, I don't mind using it even on low light BIF in Servo AF mode where the lens has done well for me.
Yeah, mine at 200 isn't as nice as it is at 190, or 180 and less...but damn I love it.
Had a 28-70 that got dropped, replaced it with a 24-70 and that was a big disappointment. My 70-200 f2.8 non-IS loses so much sharpness at the long end that I avoid it when possible.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
70-200 f/2.8L IS, is clearly better than the 70-200 f/4L twins especially in the range f/2.8 to f/3.99.
Depends what your criterion is for best. I own the 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 100-400L zooms and am lucky enough that I have good copies of all of them. If I had to choose one, though it'd be the 17-40L though. Optically maybe not the best, but for one of my loves of landscape photography it wins hands down. Now for BIF's or close-ups it'd be the 100-400L. For generic walk around, the 24-105L and for lower light, and a bit of this and a bit of that the 70-200. The best zoom is the one that gets you the shot you're after IMO....Show more →
well the f/4 IS has a better IS so for static scenes where you don't need less DOF and maybe even watn f/4 the f/4 IS actually sorta beats the f/2.8 IS even below f/4 in a sense
wow, weird the 24-105 was such a disappointment for me I sold it off right away and the 17-40 got sold off for a tamron! i can hardly imagine those as canon's two best zooms!
Yakim Peled
Very close third: 24-105/4 IS and 70-200/4 IS.
Yakim, controversial as always
Not too many people would put 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS on the same level of image quality (and at the end of the list)
I'm with Yakim on that one too. My 24-105 is at least 95% of the quality that my 70-200 f/4IS was when I had it, and I had them side by side for a while. It's a fantastic lens. I sold the 70-200 to buy one of Tanglefoot's step children (the 70-200 2.8L) and I love that lens too. I don't see a real loss in IQ by going to the 2.8 at either end of the lens' focal length, and (so far) I haven't missed the IS. I did it to have a more bokeh-friendly lens for shooting people, but even there I'm not sure I gained that much.
The 24-105 must have been one of the company's most wildy fluctuating in copy quality. I couldn't wait to unload mine, but if it had performed as well as many of these shots indicate, may have been a different story.
mfurman wrote:
Not too many people would put 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS on the same level of image quality (and at the end of the list)
I must say I have a bit of an in-principle problem with the 24-105L price positioning.......for me IS is not a sufficient ingredient to elevate a mid FL range f/4 lens to the performance as well as price level of an f/2.8 lens. Unless that f/4 lens is setting a very high standard for IQ excellence which, based on the user reports I've seen, 24-105 doesn't seem to do.
mfurman wrote:
Not too many people would put 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS on the same level of image quality (and at the end of the list)
Yes, maybe it was my friend's copy, but I couldn't get corner to corner sharpness no matter the aperture or FL I set the 24-105L at Centre was quite nice though
Centre was quite nice though