 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2008Canon 70-200mm test result on dpreview - soft wide open even on cropped sensor
This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they charge produce a lens that actually works WELL at f2.8?? Apart from better colour error control, the image looks a lot like what I got from an old Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 from way back when. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp > This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. > With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105mm-comparison.htm >This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. >With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp Don't worry, the lens is very good at Photozone. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/199-canon-ef-70-200mm -f28-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1 or http://tinyurl.com/5c5d23 Archibald >Don't worry, the lens is very good at Photozone. Surely most of the reviewers at photozone.de will have been using DSLRs with APS-C size sensors? >>Don't worry, the lens is very good at Photozone. > > Surely most of the reviewers at photozone.de will have been using > DSLRs with APS-C size sensors? APS-C and FF-results http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/all > >>Don't worry, the lens is very good at Photozone. > > > Surely most of the reviewers at photozone.de will have been using > > DSLRs with APS-C size sensors? > > APS-C and FF-resultshttp://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/all Note the comment by the one user: The only reason for the 9 rating is I've had several soft copies of this lens. My Sigma 70-200/2.8 was sharp out of the box, it was better than every other copy of this lensI had gotten until this one. Finally I'm a happy camper. >This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. >With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they >charge produce a lens that actually works WELL at f2.8?? Do you know of ANY f2.8 tele-zoom that doesn't show some problem when shooting wide open? And even these problems didn't prevent it from getting a Highly Recomended rating. Dpreview compared it to the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G. The conclusion: 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. > Apart from >better colour error control, the image looks a lot like what I got >from an old Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 from way back when. > >http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp The AT-X Pro 70-200 was a nice lens. Had the opportunity to use it for a week on a Nikon body. Heavy sucker. IIRC, in the mid-90s it sold for around $1600. TR >>This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. >>With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they >>charge produce a lens that actually works WELL at f2.8?? > Do you know of ANY f2.8 tele-zoom that doesn't show some problem when > shooting wide open? And even these problems didn't prevent it from [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > how the different demands of the two formats appear difficult > to reconcile in a single lens design. Gosh, with all the above, I'm still wondering why my old Nikkor (first version AF, not the huge MF version that preceded it, which I've never tried...) is very sharp to the corners at f2.8 on FF throughout its zoom range (at least beyond 15' or so near the long end). Zooms do vary in performance with distance more than non-zooms, and dpreview may be testing these out of their optimum focus range... BTW, the 180mm f2.8 AF is one of the sharpest FF lenses Nikon makes, and at infinity focus, the image of the old 80-200mm f2.8 is VERY hard to tell from it at f2.8 at 200mm FF. This makes me wonder, once again, about, "New and improved!". 8^) --DR > >This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. > >With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shooting wide open? And even these problems didn't prevent it from > getting a Highly Recomended rating. Probably not. But Canon has access to their own fluorite company, and it is possible to make a lens such as this at f2.8 that would be good wide open. Dpreview gives a Canon product a highly recomended rating. Who'd have though? :) > Dpreview compared it to the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G. The > conclusion: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > how the different demands of the two formats appear difficult > to reconcile in a single lens design. That conclusion is debatable, but it is possible. Their last comment though should have had the qualifier (maybe) "at a set price of $1600 or so." > > Apart from > >better colour error control, the image looks a lot like what I got [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > TR Stopped down, it was fine. Wide open it's best attribute was that the fast speed made focusing easier in lower light. RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in news:05782a43-e77c-479f-938c- f5ce16559379@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. > With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp Haven't read that review, but I shoot sports with this lens and I have some thousands of images to consider in making this response to the OP. I think it is a little soft in some images and razor sharp in others. That suggests to me that the issue could be focus (perhaps focus speed) rather than anything inherent in the optics. I use it on Canon 5D and 20D mostly. Now having said that, I must also say that I have never lost a sale because of a soft image, so my overly critical eye cannot be a factor in evaluating the image quality. The paying customers have the final say. They usually see a gallery and choose a print or two. ~Ray > RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in news:05782a43-e77c-479f-938c- > f5ce16559...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the image quality. The paying customers have the final say. They usually > see a gallery and choose a print or two. ~Ray That's good. I was at a gallery yesterday and out of the 22 odd images I saw, perhaps 3 were technically decent, so what sells as art bears little resemblance to what passes for technically excellent. I'd kind of prefer a lens to deliver a sharp image then allow the shooter to decide if they want it blurred out in post-processing, though some people no doubt prefer the lens do the blurring. The focus issue is a question. We've all heard about the large Canon's focusing issues, but I don't recall hearing it about the 20D or 5D. So the focus issue (if there is one and if it is the cause of some of the blurring you've seen) is that there is a limit to what any lens is capable of and you can go outside the control of any AF system. My main point in this was that the 70-200mm represents the pinnacle of that lens range from both mfgs, but neither is really capable of providing absolutely outstanding results because of compromises in the optical designs. I assume they could do this for $1600. I'm probably wrong as I've seen near perfect fixed-focal length lenses that were slower, and cost three times the price of those 70-200mm zooms. >This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s. Selective reading again, troll? Or selective stupidity?  SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.