Printable View
@Peety3...
LOL...but now you are comparing a fixed focal lens to a zoom lens which is a no-no!
I do agree that any lens can be approved upon, but for current owners of the Mark I, upgrading to the Mark II may not be necessary as the MTF charts show. An actual review of the Mark II should put everyones questions andconcerns hopefullyto rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
I never said "without room for improvement." I said marginal improvement with a significant increase in cost. There's always room for improvement, but at what cost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I second that. Sure, you can have drool-worthy sharpness at f/2, at what cost? And at what loss of versitality? Many photographers cannot justify spending the extra $3000 for the 200 f/2 L, or prefer the versitilaty offered by a zoom like the EF 70-200 2.8L IS (II).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
In all seriousness, will any zoom in the 70-200 f/2.8 range ever reach the level of sharpness of the 200 f/2? You can't compare apples to oranges - Or in this case, a highly corrected (and therefore highly expensive) prime lens to a zoom lens. It's not correct to say that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is a sub-par lens, solely due to your personal experience with the EF 200 f/2 L IS USM. For all we know, some may find that the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II has simply phenominal sharpness based on their experience with a lesser consumer lens.
Overall, I think the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II will be a very nice improvement over the hugely popular EF 70-200 2.8L IS. I found the 70-200 2.8L IS Mark I to have very good image quality, especially sharpness. But of course, sharpness is relative - I'm using the EF-S 55-250 as my primary telephoto lens. I think the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II will be a great successor to what is already a very high quality zoom lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Whether it's marginal or not, it depends on your value.
[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx[/url]
But to me, the Mk II's MTF looks great to me, especially higher resolving performance and sharpness in the center at both 70 and 200 ends.
This at least can easily compete with Nikon's equivalent version 1 in terms of the quality in the lens center.
[quote=[url="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp[/url]]A comparison to Nikon's AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G is particularly interesting. The two lenses are near-identical in
specification and price, but their characteristics are substantially
different. The Nikon lens clearly outperforms the Canon for sharpness
on the smaller DX/APS-C format, however this comes at the cost of
rather compromised performance on full frame, with significantly higher
distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, plus extremely soft
corners. This leads us to conclude that the two lenses were optimized
differently, the Canon for full frame and the Nikon for DX, and
illustrates how the different demands of the two formats appear
difficult to reconcile in a single lens design.[/quote]
[quote=alexniedra]
[quote=Alan]I said marginal improvement with a significant
increase in cost. There's always room for improvement, but at what
cost?[/quote]
I second that. Sure, you can have drool-worthy sharpness at f/2, [i]at[/i]
what cost? And at what loss of versitality? Many photographers cannot
justify spending the extra $3000 for the 200 f/2 L, or prefer the
versitilaty offered by a zoom like the EF 70-200 2.8L IS (II)...
[quote=peety3]
Outstanding, yes. Without room for improvement, wrong. If you ever try the 200/2, you will understand how much better life can get. I have a 'favorite shot' of the Seattle Space Needle, taken from perhaps 1.25 miles away, handheld at night, ISO 1600; it's so incredibly crisp and detailed that you can tell which TVs are on, and where people are standing. The 70-200/2.8IS can definitely be improved a lot.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
[/quote]
In all seriousness, will any zoom in the 70-200 f/2.8 range ever reach the level of sharpness of the 200 f/2? You can't compare apples to oranges...
[/quote]
I third that I don't want at all to see 70-200 f/2 simply because of the bulk and weight. F/2 takes a lot of glasses that will defeat the purpose of these 70-200 zooms' versatility.
Not sure if there are prices listed in other countries but in the UK Warehouse Express has the MkIIlisted at£2,799 compared to the MkI for £1,568.
I don't know if this just an RRP price or what but that just put a complete and utter stop to any thought I had of upgrading from the F2.8 non-IS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmo_2006
[^o)]
Shall we take a poll? [:P]
First of all, I want to say MTF is just one of many factors (e.g. n-stop IS/VR, AF, etc) to quantitatively compare lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan
But the good thing is MTF is objective so it's easy to compare.
The MTF's of Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk I, Mk II, and Nikon's Mk II
You can safely ignore all blue lines on Canon's MTF as they are at f/8 and Nikon's MTF doesn't provide that data. So just compare:
- S10 (contrast): Canon's thick black (f/2.8) solid vs Nikon's red solid
- M10 (contrast): Canon's thick black (f/2.8) dash vs Nikon's red dash
- S30 (resolution): Canon's thin black (f/2.8) solid vs Nikon's blue solid
- M30 (resolution): Canon's thin black (f/2.8) dash vs Nikon's blue dash
Some observations (may have some oversights):
- At 70, Canon's I & II are inferior to Nikon's II in terms of all factors -- contrast, resolution, at S and M directions [:(][:(][:(][:(][:(]
- At 70, Canon's I is inferior to Canon's II in terms of all factors [:)][:)][:)]
- At 200, Canon's I is inferior to Canon's II in terms of resolution [:)][:)]
- At 200, Canon's I is slightly inferior to Canon's II in terms of contrast at the corner [:)][:)]
- At 200, Canon's II is very competitive to Nikon's II in terms of all factors (almost) [:)][:)]
- Both Canon's are way steadier generally from center to 15mm (near sensor's corner) whereas Nikon drops exponentially from center to corner (21.5mm) [:)][:)][:)]
- BTW, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200MM F/2.8G ED VR II sells at $2400 at B&H so maybe we can expect really similar price on Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Mk I):
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...0_28ismtf1.gifhttp://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...0_28ismtf2.gif
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...u_wide_mtf.gifhttp://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...u_tele_mtf.gif
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200MM F/2.8G ED VR II:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0907/...II_MTF_W_i.jpghttp://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0907/...II_MTF_T_i.jpg
[:(][:(][:(][:(]Quote:
Originally Posted by waving_odd
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the extra stop of IS will make the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II canon's most hand holdable lens for still objects. (When used at the 70mm end, the extra stop of IS moves it ahead of the 200 f/2 and the 24-105 f/4). Kind of neat, if true.
Personally, I'll have to see the price and read reviews (Bryan's review, anyway) before I can decide if I should upgrade. It will take a significant IQ increase to move me.
I guess I need to get a II and a 200 f2, just to cover the bases...
yeah... [<:o)]