mfurman wrote:
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)
1. I had both and IMHO both have roughly the same IQ and BQ.
2. Please note that both second and third places were marked as "very close" as they all are really very close and differences is really splitting hairs. The 24-105 distorts in the wide end and the 70-200/4 IS showed absolutely no sharpness difference when compared with my 70-200/2.8 IS and bokeh was much worse. IS difference (third vs. fourth generation) was also marginal.
3. Basically speaking, I'd rank faster lenses higher when all other things are equal.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience with the 70-200. I've had 3, and the f/4 non IS was absolutely stunning. I'm sorry I sold it, even if I do have the f/2.8 IS still....
I'm wondering about pic #2. Does that taste like chicken?
PetKal wrote:
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.
The pricing for the 24-105L has proven to be a challenge for me to justify given the f/4.
Since I haven't used many Canon zooms, my favourite is the 70-200/2.8L (non-IS). I bought it on a fancy after my first L (300/4L non-IS). Though it isn't as outstanding as the 300/4L non-IS, the 70-200/2.8L has delivered consistently.
SR777 wrote:
The pricing for the 24-105L has proven to be a challenge for me to justify given the f/4.
Since I haven't used many Canon zooms, my favourite is the 70-200/2.8L (non-IS). I bought it on a fancy after my first L (300/4L non-IS). Though it isn't as outstanding as the 300/4L non-IS, the 70-200/2.8L has delivered consistently.
Master SR777, of all four 70-200 zooms, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS has also been my favourite. Alas, I sold it in order to "upgrade" to the f/2.8 IS version.
However, while 70-200 f/4 IS is obviously an f/4 lens, I suppose its relatively high price can be rationalized thru a putative excellence of IQ.
Yet, need we remind ourselves that broad sweeping utterances on diverse lens models are statistically difficult if only for the copy-to-copy performance dispersion from which some Canon lenses seem to suffer.
In conclusion, let me just show you a couple of latest floral/landscape examples of what 80-200L does. BTW, saturation on these (and others) has not been touched beyond in-camera +2 (40D), in "standard picture style".
Just recently I missed an opportunity of getting this "drainpipe" in Chicago craigslist. It was well priced ($450) and of course well used by a local photographer.
yxl122 wrote:
Just recently I missed an opportunity of getting this "drainpipe" in Chicago craigslist. It was well priced ($450) and of course well used by a local photographer.
Do you have one to spare, PetKal?
he has hordes of them. Buys them by the case like fine wine
yxl122 wrote:
Just recently I missed an opportunity of getting this "drainpipe" in Chicago craigslist. It was well priced ($450) and of course well used by a local photographer.
Do you have one to spare, PetKal?
Sorry, YXL.....you'll have to talk to my widow about that.
I've only ever owned the 10-22mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and am hard pressed to pick one over the other.
The 10-22mm was the only UWA option available for the 1.6 crop when I joined the Canon crowd and its one of the things which caused me to make the move completely away from film to a DSLR system. I was waiting for a 8MP camera under $1,500 and a UWA and the 20D and 10-22mm which were announced at the same time sealed the deal for me. I bought the 24-70mm and 70-200mm at the same time to cover the full range of what I needed.
My 24-70mm is razor sharp and the lens I keep on the camera most of the time for portraits and PJ style candids I shoot most. I have the most fun with the 10-22mm because its distortion of reality when used close presents more opportunities to see things in ways different than the way the eye does. I use the 70-200mm the least because I shoot mostly indoors, but its a joy to use and reminds me why I switched. Seeing a review and samples of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is what made me decide to switch to Canon after many years of using Nikon above and underwater.
yxl122 wrote:
Just recently I missed an opportunity of getting this "drainpipe" in Chicago craigslist. It was well priced ($450) and of course well used by a local photographer.
And I thought mine at $650 was considered robbery...With my limited experience thus far in photography, I have used a couple of zoom lenses. The 70-200L F/4, the 24-105L F/4, the 80-200L F/2.8 aka "The Magic Drainpipe", and the EF-s 18-55 IS and NON-IS.
My favor has to go to the 80-200L. It's sharp, the color rendition and contrast is perfect, the it focuses just fine and fast enough for my tastes, and it compares well with the couple opportunities I've had to mount the 200L F/2.8 in all these areas. My post adjustments of images taken with this lens have required the least "correction" in comparison to any of the other lenses I've used (could be newbie error though also, but not entirely).
Ha, all these things and talks made me want to pray in a "viscous" way for the guy who posses hordes of them...
well, to be serious, i was dragging my feet then, when i though of service/maintenance of this drainpipe in the future. it would be no problem, if i could find out a second one as a backup.
The 70-200 f2.8 IS is my number one zoom lens. The 2.8 is incredibly useful in many situations and while it's a bit heavy to carry around all day the weight is offset by the results
Most disappointing zoom I've ever used, regardless of make, was the 24-105L. Absolute junk!
I would say if you can get a good copy, the 70-200/2.8L IS should be here. I find the non-IS is more consistent when it comes to sharpness, but when the IS version is on the money, it's the winner of all the zooms.
IS that a painted 70-200 IS?
Man the lenghts people will go to. But shouldn't you have painted the Gold ring on the front and the Nikon logo on the Body
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
IS that a painted 70-200 IS?
Man the lenghts people will go to. But shouldn't you have painted the Gold ring on the front and the Nikon logo on the Body
Looks like gaffer tape. What ever the H is on the end of it I'm not sure of...
whats that?