Buying decisions: 70-200 4 IS or 2.8 non IS AND 17-40 or 10-22?

[Gian Luca]

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-themecolor: dark2;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I own a 70-200 f 2.8 IS and it perform differently for me on full frame Sensor vs APS Sensor. I own a 5D and a 5DMKII and this lens works great for me.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-themecolor: dark2;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]A friend of mine owns a 40D, and the 70-200 f 4 IS.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-themecolor: dark2;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I tried the f 2.8 on a 40D, sharpness was poor wide opened, and did not improved a lot when stopped down, at least not as much as the 70-200 f 4.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-themecolor: dark2;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]My feeling is that the f 2.8 works better on full frame sensor.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-themecolor: dark2;"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-themecolor: dark2;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]As far as IS is concerned, I love it. I can shoot handled with this lens at 1/30keeping a good rate of good pictures even at 200 mm (this is confirmed also in Bryan review). This is not possible without IS<o></o>

[MVers]

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]

<span style="color: #1f497d;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]<span> I
tried the f 2.8 on a 40D, sharpness was poor wide opened, and did not
improved a lot when stopped down, at least not as much as the 70-200 f
4.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]My feeling is that the f 2.8 works better on full frame sensor.

That
is not true at all. If anything the 70-200/2.8IS (or any lens for that
matter) would perform worse on the 5D than it would on a 40D due to the
larger image circle of FF exposing more of the lenses edge performance.
It sounds to me like your lens is better calibrated on your 5D than it
is on your friends 40D. In my experience with the 70-200/2.8IS on both
40D and 5D I did not notice any IQ degradation when swapping between
bodies, the only thing different was the amount of PP sharpening due to
the 5D weak AA filter (5D less, 40D more).


As to the OP's original question, have you considered the 85/1.8 and 135L as a substitute for any of the 70-200's?
I only mention them because of what you want to shoot, street candids
and sports. For street hauling around a larger white lens attracts a
lot of attention to you--of course if that's what your looking for by
all means but for a stealthier approach the 85/1.8 and 135L combo work
very well together (not to mention being able to kill busy backgrounds
with wider apertures). For sports (specifically indoors), while you loose versatility you gain much better low light performance. If the prime recommendation is a no go I'd suggest the 70-200/2.8 over the f/4IS--there is no substitution for faster aperture. While the f/4IS is the sharpest of the 70-200's, IS does not stop motion so for sports it is almost completely negligible (aside for panning in mode 2) and f/4 is extremely limiting when it comes to shooting moving subjects in low light. While the f/4IS is lighter and smaller than the 2.8's it will not help you any when shooting the type of photography you listed.


As for WA's you may find the Canon 10-22 much more useful on your crop body for landscapes and architecture. Some others you may want to check out is the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the Tokina 12-24. The Tokina 11-16, while its range is very small, is the best performing lens in terms of sharpness of the group and its f/2.8 aperture could come in handy if ever shooting indoor architecture in low light when a tripod is unavailable--well worth a look specifically if you're planning on getting a mid range zoom in the future (something along the lines of a 17-40 or EF-S 17-55).


-Matt

[Gian Luca]

I did not answer untill I did not find this review that confirm my data on 70-200 f 2.8 on APS sensor


[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]


DPREVIEW.com states:


[b]Conclusion - Cons[/b]
<ul type="square"][*]Slightly soft wide open (most notably on APS-C) [/list]