I am convinced, I sell the 70-200 I, and I buy the 70-200II. As you said Bryan the version I is one of my favorite lens, and I was waiting for your review to decide. I tried to compare the 135 f2 on the ISO12233 Chart, both at f2.8, I have the impression that the new 70-200 is as sharp as the prime. Am I right?[:P]
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I suppose it depends on where you're looking and your intended use. The 70-200 MkII + 1.4x (samples 1 and 3, in any case) appears a bit shaper in the center, and a bit less sharp in mid-frame and the corners. So, to me, it sort of balances out - but, if the zoom+tc really is a bit sharper in the center, and you're shooting birds centered in the frame...
Looks that way to me, as well. Since I have the EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L II USM, once I get my copy of the 70-200 MkII I'll be testing them 'real-world' against each other. As long as the difference isn't huge, I'll likely keep the prime for the significantly smaller size and lower weight - it's a very easy long-ish lens to pack when long shots are opportunistic and not the primary goal of the outing.
Excellent point!
No surprise there - the 2x extender is pretty notorious for introducing aberrations. But as Bryan states, if the goal is 400mm, then neither a 70-200mm f/2.8 (any) + 2x extender nor a 300mm f/4 + 1.4x extender is the optimal choice to achieve 400mm f/5.6 - the optimal choice there is the 400mm f/5.6 prime or the 100-400mm zoom.
No, I don't think you are. While I agree with Jon that the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II outperforms the EF 200mm f/2.8L II, comparing theEF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to the EF 135mm f/2 at f/2.8, the prime is just slightly sharper than the zoom at the center, but the prime is noticeably sharper at mid-frame and the corners. The zoom is sharper across the frame at 135mm f/2.8 than the prime is at f/2 - but the prime is at f/2! So, if you need maximum sharpness at 135mm, or if you need f/2, the EF 135mm f/2L is still the best choice.
I think the lens is awesome, and your review is excellent, thorough (as usual!), and just adds the final point to my decision to purchase this lens!
At cameranu.nl, a Dutch web-store, the 70-200 II costs nearly as much as a 5DII+24-105 combo. So if I would spend this amount on canon-gear, my choice(upgrading from a rebel), would be ofcourse the combo.
But nevertheless, if I would ever have luck in the lottery, I would at that time certainly buy the 70-200 III, imagine what the markIII version would look like
Comparing the iso charts for the 100-400mm to the Mark II with the 2X extender, they seem to very similar at 400. Thoughts?
Also it seems to me that there is a decrease in sharpness when going from f/4 to f5.6 and beyond. Anyone else notice this.
Thanks
No, I don't see this. It's remarkable that there's not an increase in sharpness as you stop down from f/2.8 to f/4-5.6 with this lens (but, for example, there is a slight increase in sharpness at 70mm (sample 1) in the mid-frame, with stopping down. It's a testament to the quality of the lens that's is as sharp wide open as stopped down 1-2 stops. At very small apertures (above f/11) diffraction is starting to have an effect with the 1Ds III sensor, so you'd expect increasing 'softness' there.
To me, the 100-400mm at 400mm looks noticeably sharper at the center and mid-frame; corner sharpness is similar between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote