L Series - How old is too old?

[Ade]

Hi All, Newbie question so forgive me if this has been done before;


I am swithering about lenses, but its not the usual " hich one should i get question", its;


The 200mm 2.8L was released in 1991 some 20 years ago


The 70-200 2.8 IS L II was released only last year


Forgetting the usual discussion points of versatility IS etc, does anyone have any experience of the quality of the older optics versus the newer ones, i.e. are 20 year old lenses still compaprable with the new ones?


Would the new zooms beat the older primes in terms of image quality alone? I could assume a 200mm prime Mk3 would be better, but thats not an option,


Finally, although released in 1991, do these lenses get upgrades, or is the same lens in 2011 the same as a 1991 one?


A few questions in one there, but any experience would be helpful.


Cheers

[andnowimbroke]

I do know ( pretty sure which is close to knowing) that there have been stealth updates in lenses as this has been talked about before. As for whether your 200mm prime is better than your 70-200mm zoom, Bryan has a lens comparison that you might be able to use until people with knowledge speak up. One persons "way sharper" might be another persons "meh", and if we

[Ade]

[Fast Glass]

Here are some ISO 112233 crops, they are pictures taken of a chalenging test target in a controlled environment.


Here is a link to the 70-200mm II and 200mm II www.the-digital-picture.com/.../ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx


The zoom is actually a tiny bit sharper but mostly better contrast and better CA. Most of the time primes a sharper but this one like you said is very old and the best zooms today can sometimes beat them. Which in this is case the zoom wins.


Too my knowledge there was no stealth update on this lens, the first version of this lens was the same optically and had a built in sliding hood. That makes the optics in this lens even older.


John.

[Ade]

Nice one, the differences there are quite obvious, it seems time does take its toll......

[nvitalephotography]

I

[Sheiky]

Forgetting the usual discussion points of versatility IS etc, does anyone have any experience of the quality of the older optics versus the newer ones, i.e. are 20 year old lenses still compaprable with the new ones?

I never tried the new 70-200 f2.8, but I have used the 200mm f2.8L II at a figure-skating event a few months ago. I only shot at f4 so I can't say how it is at f2.8, but I am very impressed by the results.


The AF is bloody fast. I think it's the fastes AF-lens I've used to this day. My 70-200 f4L IS is fast, but this one is better. (Might also be due to the f2.8 focusing points...dunno)


If you don't need a zoom and don't mind missing IS, it's a great lens. And given the price, it's really good. I like the 200mm a lot for the ice-skating, however it's not such an easy prime-length. It's not really a tele-lens, also it's not really a portrait lens. Since it's not really a tele-lens, it doesn't have a dedicated purpose. (like birds or something). On the other hand, with a 200mm prime, taking a step back or forward doesn't change a lot in the composition, which makes it a difficult lens for me to use in general.


If you are certain about the focal lenght, I'd say go for it. It's a sharp lens.The benefit of the new lenses is more with aberration and flare-control and new coatings and that sort of stuff if you ask me. Sharpnesswise, you're not going to notice a big increase in sharpness, although the ISO-crops might give you that idea.


I personally like primes more and more, but for me there are still situations where I need a zoom. So I ended up with a zoom anyways.


If you want, I could post a 100% crop or something. Just let me know.


Jan

[Fast Glass]

The AF is bloody fast. I think it's the fastes AF-lens I've used to this day. My 70-200 f4L IS is fast, but this one is better. (Might also be due to the f2.8 focusing points...dunno)

Yes, f/2.8 helps but mostly because it's a rear focusing type AF.

Sharpnesswise, you're not going to notice a big increase in sharpness, although the ISO-crops might give you that idea.

There is more ofa contrast difference than a sharpness difference.The difference will be less in a 8x10 print. In a13x19it would bemore obvious, but with some CA correction and a little sharpeningit will lookfine.


I just used myTele-Lentar135mm f/2.8 for the first time seriouslyand all I can say is WOW! The focall length andcompression hits my personal sweet spot on my 60D. The bokeh is very clean andcompressed. I'll post some of them once I get through them.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

The 200mm 2.8L was released in 1991 some 20 years ago


The 70-200 2.8 IS L II was released only last year

Both are excellent lenses. I had the 200mm f/2.8L II for a while, sold it in favor of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - but that was for those 'other' reasons, namely versatility, IS, and weather-sealing. From an IQ standpoint in real-world use, the 200/2.8 was excellent.

do these lenses get upgrades

They don't get 'stealth updates' from an optical standpoint, but there are 'stealth' repairs (sometimes not really stealthy) - e.g. the 24-105mm f/4L initially had a specific issue with flare, which was corrected in later copies (in that case, Canon issued a service notice and fixed the older copies). I suspect there are sometimes stelath updates from a mechanical standpoint, though.