Chris Radley wrote:
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 can't, for the life of me, understand why some people have such a bug up their ___ about this lens. What is so bad about it? The IS works well, the IQ for general shooting is great, and the focal range is very handy. What's not to like? If you want a lack of barrel distortion, get a prime or T/S. It's not a 2.8, but doesn't claim to be. For what (I think) its purpose was intended, mine works very well!
PetKal wrote:
What have you got screwed into the lens end ?
It's just an inexpensive 77mm screw-in metal lens hood, fixed to the front of a multicoated UV filter.
It's my PJ background; all my lenses go in an out of my bags this way, so they're ready to shoot. I have something like it for nearly all the lenses I use for indoor event work:
Matt Philbin wrote:
I can't, for the life of me, understand why some people have such a bug up their ___ about this lens. What is so bad about it? The IS works well, the IQ for general shooting is great, and the focal range is very handy. What's not to like? If you want a lack of barrel distortion, get a prime or T/S. It's not a 2.8, but doesn't claim to be. For what (I think) its purpose was intended, mine works very well!
I strongly would suspect sample variation, which has plagued Canon lenses in genreal; I've seen a poor copy of this one too. I believe a properly adjusted one is a fine lens...
garyvot wrote:
It's just an inexpensive 77mm screw-in metal lens hood, fixed to the front of a multicoated UV filter.
It's my PJ background; all my lenses go in an out of my bags this way, so they're ready to shoot. I have something like it for nearly all the lenses I use for indoor event work:
If I'm shooting wildlife or lanscapes though, I'll tend to use real lens hoods for maximum shading.
An excellent idea. I like the look of the 85L above. The metal hood makes the lens look like it could have been made by Schneider Optics for medium format cameras.
Yakim Peled wrote:
First: 17-55/2.8 IS.
Very close second: 70-200/2.8 IS.
Very close third: 24-105/4 IS and 70-200/4 IS.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
what??
i compared a 70-200 f/4 IS to a very good 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS was better over most of the range and I compared that 2.8 non-IS to a 2.8 IS and it was better over the entire range and i compared a 24-105 IS to an f/4 IS and the f/4 IS was sharp to the corner on a 5D2 and the 24-105 was blurry all along all edges and corners, how in the world can the 24-105 be rated a tie, optically with the 70-200 f/4 IS? It is not even reasonable as the 70-200 range is so much easier to design than 24-105!
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.
yeah, that's the thing how can one pay $1000 just for convience alone? You don't get the T&S of a 24mm T&S (or half the IQ) or the f/1.4 or the IQ of a 24mm 1.4 or the low cost and IQ of a 50mm 1.4 or the quality and f/1.2 of an 85 2 or the quality of a 70-200 or even the sharpness of a tamron 28-75 at 1/3 the price (just a bit wider range and IS, for $1000!)
even if my copy was bad and a typical one ties the tamron for sharpness and beats it for contrast that is still $1000
maybe if it was $650 list.
and the 17-55 IS, at the same price, does so much better on APS-C
anyway i better shut up, i talk too much about the 24-105
Dawei Ye wrote:
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
ok one more on teh 24-105
yeah even at f/10 the corners were still not sharp on mine
i compared a 70-200 f/4 IS to a very good 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS was better over most of the range and I compared that 2.8 non-IS to a 2.8 IS and it was better over the entire range and i compared a 24-105 IS to an f/4 IS and the f/4 IS was sharp to the corner on a 5D2 and the 24-105 was blurry all along all edges and corners, how in the world can the 24-105 be rated a tie, optically with the 70-200 f/4 IS? It is not even reasonable as the 70-200 range is so much easier to design than 24-105! ...Show more →
Maybe people base their decision(s) of the "best Canon zoom ever" off personal needs rather than spec sheets and MTF charts? 'Best' doesn't equate to 'sharpest'.
skibum5 wrote:
yeah, that's the thing how can one pay $1000 just for convience alone? You don't get the T&S of a 24mm T&S (or half the IQ) or the f/1.4 or the IQ of a 24mm 1.4 or the low cost and IQ of a 50mm 1.4 or the quality and f/1.2 of an 85 2 or the quality of a 70-200 or even the sharpness of a tamron 28-75 at 1/3 the price (just a bit wider range and IS, for $1000!)
even if my copy was bad and a typical one ties the tamron for sharpness and beats it for contrast that is still $1000
maybe if it was $650 list.
and the 17-55 IS, at the same price, does so much better on APS-C
anyway i better shut up, i talk too much about the 24-105
i compared a 70-200 f/4 IS to a very good 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS was better over most of the range and I compared that 2.8 non-IS to a 2.8 IS and it was better over the entire range and i compared a 24-105 IS to an f/4 IS and the f/4 IS was sharp to the corner on a 5D2 and the 24-105 was blurry all along all edges and corners, how in the world can the 24-105 be rated a tie, optically with the 70-200 f/4 IS? It is not even reasonable as the 70-200 range is so much easier to design than 24-105!...Show more →
no bugs up the arse about the 24-105 here -- some people have done really nice things with it... but as the digital picture said: "if i could only have one lens, this would be it."
...which is probably why i don't have this lens. i don't want an all-in-one lens that (much like the kawasaki KLR650) does a lot of things decently and nothing outstandingly. i would rather break up the tasks of the 24-105 into several (possibly niche-) lenses that cover all of this range superbly (with an emphasis on IQ). of course, ymmv based on shooting style and amount of disposable income.
David Clapp wrote:
Petkal, I cant believe I am seeing this man, the one with the teapot.
"IT'S... IMPOSSIBOL!!!! But I am Simba, and when I try, I know I can do it."
This guy had me endtertained the whole way when I saw him at the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago. Just excellent.
Yes, the world is small, David.
I think Simba and his wife (?) are touring the world from one busker festival to another.....we in Toronto did enjoy their show very much. Particularly the end of it was funny in the extreme.......while they were collecting donations from the audience, their audio box started piping our national anthem.
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
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
garyvot wrote:
I strongly would suspect sample variation, which has plagued Canon lenses in genreal; I've seen a poor copy of this one too. I believe a properly adjusted one is a fine lens...
I agree that the 70-200/2.8 IS is probably the worst lens for "sample variation", needing calibration (although, all three I've tried have been fantastic), but disagree this plagues Canon lenses in general. In fact, many polls (some quite large) have shown this is not the case, with Canon tying Nikon for least problematic lenses (Sigma and Tokina were the worst if memory serves).
Centre was quite nice though