Canon 70-200 f2.8 - Sharp Copy

EMA747

EMA747

Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking into getting myself a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens. I have read that for lenses like the 100-400mm IS you can get copies that are less sharp than others. Anyone know if this happens with the 70-200mm as well?

I am looking to get one new from Kerso so I will obviously not be able to test it first. (Please note I am not saying Kerso sells dodgy lenses by the way).

Andy S
 
I think its just pot luck on what you get.:)
 
surely "if" it was way out Canon would calibrate it if it was within warranty anyway? although ive not heard of many 70-200's being out.
 
The whole sharpness thing, is it because of calibration issues? And can soft copies be uncalibrated to be sharp?
 
think twice before getting the is version, unless you really really really need it, you'll find it a complete waste of time and money
 
I have the 2.8 IS version and think it's great. If I dont wont IS I just turn it off, so best of both worlds:)
 
knocker said:
think twice before getting the is version, unless you really really really need it, you'll find it a complete waste of time and money
Click to expand...
Why do you say that? Is it because it costs more than the non IS one?

Both versions are very expensive so my take on it is it's better to spend the extra money now than wish somewhere down the line that I had gone with the IS rather than the non IS.

I have also read that the IS one is a tiny bit less sharp than the non IS but I bet it would be hard to tell the difference in reality. Both would be a massive improvement on my £200 Tamron zoom anyway! :LOL:

Andy S
 
I tested both the f/2.8 IS and f/4.0 IS versions a few weeks ago. Both were very sharp with the F/4 having the slight edge. AF was quick on both with the the 2.8 seeming slightly faster. The IS on the F/4 was noticeably better in both mode 1 and mode 2, but that was to be expected as it has the newer 4 stop version. The 2.8 felt better constructed (probably due to weight) but they were both superb.

In the end I went for the F/4 IS mainly due to it's weight and better IS. Cost was also a minor niggle. I think if the 2.8 had the new IS I would have chosen it over the f/4, but in the end the additional 2 stops of IS and better (lighter) handling won me over.

I would have liked the f/2.8, but most of my tele shots are taken outdoor in good light where f/4 is fine.

As the IS is comparitively poor on the f/2.8 I would consider eithe the non-IS 2.8 version or the F/4 IS, and pocket the change.

One other thing to note is that the f/2.8 gets noticeably sharper when stepped down to f/4 or f/5.6. The F/4 IS is tack sharp wide open and offers only tiny gains when stopped down. Both seemed to peak at f/5.6 for me.
 
EMA747 said:
I am looking into getting myself a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens. I have read that for lenses like the 100-400mm IS you can get copies that are less sharp than others. Anyone know if this happens with the 70-200mm as well?

I am looking to get one new from Kerso so I will obviously not be able to test it first. (Please note I am not saying Kerso sells dodgy lenses by the way).

Andy S
Click to expand...


I didn't think this happened with L series lenses, did it?

Must say, my 70-200 f2.8 is just soooo sharp.

Spence
 
ive never had any issues with mine 2.8 IS, it was well worth the money for me. the portraits come out so crisp and beautiful in this lens its just a dream. i find that with that focal length IS really helps.
 
I have had both the F2.8 and f2.8 IS and found the is better yes its a bit heavier but if I had to only have one lens it is the one I would keep
 
I think my mind is made up to go with the f2.8 IS version. Yes it's more expensive but as either will be a massive investment for I'd rather go with the cream of the crop now rather than go with the cheaper of the two and wish later than I hadn't.

Now all I need to do is get some money!!

Andy S
 
if your buying new, let me recommend Ian (Kerso). You'll struggle to find it cheaper. I paid £1169 for mine delivered but prices may have changed since then.
 
knocker said:
think twice before getting the is version, unless you really really really need it, you'll find it a complete waste of time and money
Click to expand...

Another disagree with that statement here - I have the IS version and did a portrait session at the weekend where I must have accidentally knocked the IS off half way round and you could see a notable difference in the images!!!!
 
hsuffyan said:
if your buying new, let me recommend Ian (Kerso). You'll struggle to find it cheaper. I paid £1169 for mine delivered but prices may have changed since then.
Click to expand...
That's who I am going with. I bought a 100-400 IS of him a couple of years ago and the price and service were excellent. (I have since sold the 100-400 though and the 70-200 is a kind of replacement that is more versatile for what I want to use it for).
 
IS is a fantastic invention, no idea why people knock it - love mine
 
Yep i have to agree,i would always xhoose the IS on any lens.:)(y)
 
adding further to this thread I have owned two of the F4 versions and both were really good lenses I bought it twice so it must of been LOL

but I find the F4 hopeless for indoor situations and just got the yearning for the F2.8IS which negates the indoors problem

as for sharpness I see no difference with any of the 3 that I owned - but now can get good results indoors
plus the F4 versions are real sluggish using the converters whereas the F2.8 is miles better

I would choose the Non IS F2.8 over either of the F4's now

my 2p
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top