Advice: Canon 70-200mm f4

markgriff

markgriff

Messages
54
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I am looking to purchase a 70-200mm lens for use when travelling. I have looked at the Sigma 2.8 but it is a bit heavy at about 1.5kg.

As a result I was considering the Canon f4 (non IS) which is half the weight and even cheaper!

I noticed that there is a big jump in price to the IS version of this lens and I was just wondering if this extra outlay is solely for the IS feature or is there any difference in the optical quality of these lenses? :shrug:
 
I've never used the IS version but the non IS lens is said to be the sharper of the two. Although, that's a little like comparing two scalpels. :)
 
I just brought one yesterday off Ink for the same reasons as you, nice and light, cheap(ish) and sharp. There was another one in the for sale section too.
 
trapper501 said:
here is the closed thread...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=143689
Click to expand...

Many thanks for that! I was a bit concerned when I couldn't find a business address on the site and the price seemed too good to be true! Will definately avoid...

Well the feedback certainly suggests that there is no deficiency in the optical quality of the cheaper non IS version, so I sense my wallet may be coming out......however, it's going no-where near Crazy Cameras then!! :lol:
 
stumpybrown said:
I just brought one yesterday off Ink for the same reasons as you, nice and light, cheap(ish) and sharp. There was another one in the for sale section too.
Click to expand...

Do you have a website address stumpy as i'm not familiar with Ink?

Thanks
 
if your ankering for fast but light, consider the 50-150. lovely lens as well, gives equivelant to 70-200 on full frame:)
 
I've owned both versions, and there is nothing between them for image sharpness. The non IS is a relative bargain (or it was last year). The IS version does give amazing image stabilisation, circular aperture blades for smoother OOF blur, and weather sealing (on a 1d body). They are both great!
 
markgriff said:
I am looking to purchase a 70-200mm lens for use when travelling. I have looked at the Sigma 2.8 but it is a bit heavy at about 1.5kg.

As a result I was considering the Canon f4 (non IS) which is half the weight and even cheaper!

I noticed that there is a big jump in price to the IS version of this lens and I was just wondering if this extra outlay is solely for the IS feature or is there any difference in the optical quality of these lenses? :shrug:
Click to expand...

The IS and non-IS lenses are quite a lot different inside. Canon has put a few more bits of glass in the new one, as well as the latest 4-stop IS mechanism. It is also weather-proofed which I think the non-IS is not. If you look at Canon's MTF graphs for both versions, it is possible to argue that either lens is better, depending where you look in the frame, at what f/number, focal length etc. But it is also true that they are both exceptionally good, almost certainly Canon's sharpest zooms.

I think the IS is worth the extra and I bought my 70-200L 4 IS from Kerso, for £799 a few weeks ago, plus £10 RMSD, UK duty and VAT paid, with 12 months warranty. He is a well known independent trader who is popular and trusted on here. You can PM him as kerso or email kerso1123@msn.com
 
dazzajl said:
I've never used the IS version but the non IS lens is said to be the sharper of the two. Although, that's a little like comparing two scalpels. :)
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that said anywhere in reviews, however both lenses are said to be exceptionally sharp and amongst the best of canon lenses.

The IS has other improvements over the non IS, like circular blades and weather proofing, but I think the reason for making the jump would be the IS.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
DigitalRelish said:
This comparison between the IS and non-IS shows a significant difference in image sharpness. Certainly, the IS version I owned was fantastically sharp (just ask trapper501 ;) ).
Click to expand...

Not for the first time has that site thrown up anomolies. I don't like their test procedure which which is, frankly, fundamentally flawed. Have a look at the Canon (cheap) 18-55 IS vs the (expensive) 17-55 2.8. It's nonsense.

They must know that it's wrong, as often happens when you shoot flat 2D test targets at close distance. By their measure, the 70-300 IS is sharper than the 70-200L 4 non-IS. Even the humble 55-250 IS runs it very close. They are both very good lenses as it happens, but not that good.

There is also something specifically wrong with that particular test, or their lens sample. Maybe they used a different size target compared to the others (there's a choice of three sizes, which they don't tell you about) but something is amiss. Both 70-200L 4 lenses are quite possibly the sharpest zooms you can get, at any price, any brand.
 
DigitalRelish said:
This comparison between the IS and non-IS shows a significant difference in image sharpness.
Click to expand...


Blimey, that's the biggest load of tosh I've seen since Pete took up HDR.:eek:

I tend to shoot anything important on MF and generally I'd consider some of my stuff like the 17-40 and 24-105 canon lenses to be just good enough for commercial use but the 70-200 f4 is a gem.

Shame really as the idea for that comparison site and the way it works is just great.
 
dazzajl said:
Blimey, that's the biggest load of tosh I've seen since Pete took up HDR.:eek:

I tend to shoot anything important on MF and generally I'd consider some of my stuff like the 17-40 and 24-105 canon lenses to be just good enough for commercial use but the 70-200 f4 is a gem.

Shame really as the idea for that comparison site and the way it works is just great.
Click to expand...

I've always found the reviews and analysis on the-digital-picture.com to be spot on for the Canon lenses which have come my way. I only wish there were an equivalent site for Nikon.

Without generalising and just calling it tosh, can you explain what's wrong with the analysis provided on the site?
 
Without generalising and just calling it tosh, can you explain what's wrong with the analysis provided on the site?
Click to expand...

The baby 70-200 is the sharpest zoom lens I've ever seen.... period. Well certainly mine is and from what I've heard other owners say, it looks like a common perception. I've heard many a similar comment about the IS version too, which can only be a good thing.

As for that comparison, whichever is the sharper the one thing that seems certain from the real world is that either version is stunningly sharp. If you can accept that, then there is obviously a fairly major flaw in that test. Which sadly for me means that I'm unlikely to trust the site much in the future. :(
 
dazzajl said:
The baby 70-200 is the sharpest zoom lens I've ever seen.... period. Well certainly mine is and from what I've heard other owners say, it looks like a common perception. I've heard many a similar comment about the IS version too, which can only be a good thing.

As for that comparison, whichever is the sharper the one thing that seems certain from the real world is that either version is stunningly sharp. If you can accept that, then there is obviously a fairly major flaw in that test. Which sadly for me means that I'm unlikely to trust the site much in the future. :(
Click to expand...

I've no doubt that the f/4 non-IS is a sharp lens, but have you been able to compare all four flavours of the 70-200 L under controlled conditions?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the site does offer its test methods and results for due consideration.

I've owned the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS. I've not used the non-IS versions. So, I can't offer an opinion of the comparative sharpness between the IS and non-IS versions, but I have found the reviews of the IS versions to represent my own experience accurately.

I can say the same for every other Canon lens I've owned which is why I think the site is so useful, but that's just my experience which may well differ from everyone elses. :shrug:
 
markgriff said:
Do you have a website address stumpy as i'm not familiar with Ink?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I think that he is referring to the For Sale section, specifically this thread.

I am in the same position as yourself and find myself without a longer zoom at the moment. I have used the 70-200 F4 with IS and think that it is a great piece of kit. BUT without the budget I will probably end up getting the non-IS version.

HTH.
 
DigitalRelish said:
What, exactly, is nonsense about it? I don't see anything obviously out of place with the comparison between the two lenses.
Click to expand...

What's 'nonsense' LOL is that when you bring up the test images, the 18-55 looks sharper than the 18-55 2.8 (which costs six times the price) when in real world picture taking it is not.

Everybody knows that it is not. I have both lenses myself. The text of that review refers to the fact that the target shots don't do the lens justice, because of a combination of factors. From memory I think they speculate that the 2.8 lens is optimised for longer shooting distances and that is almost certainly a factor.

But the other thing, that they do not draw attention to, is that even if they used the largest of the three target sizes available, at 17mm they are shooting it from only 1m or so, and the edges will be at least 20cm further away than the centre. While manufacturers strive to keep the focus field of the lens reasonably flat, this is not a very important consideration in practice - unless you shoot 2D test targets from very close distance. So they quite often let this factor drift a bit in the best interests of making the lens perform really well where it matters.

Basically, if you take a real world situation, like a 3D subject shot from maybe 3m or more distance, then the 17-55 2.8 is scalpel sharp all over, and sharper than the 18-55 IS, as you would expect. As well as being f/2.8 throughout. This is the experience of everybody who has this lens, and why we are happy to pay the premium (not forgetting very low distortion, good vignetting control, and higher build quality etc).

The problem thay have is trying to get a test that is simple, easy, cheap and repeatable to do, and can cover lenses from super wide to mega telephoto. That is a very big ask and unfortunately, no such test procedure exists. The manufacturers use computer generated MTF tests, with the lens focused on infinity, and at huge cost, but this comes out as a not very user-friendly set of graphs. There are plenty of them to be found on the Canon site though, even if what they ultimately put out only gives a small glimpse of overall performance. Nikon and Sigma also publish comparable MTF graphs.

:)

Edit: here are the Canon MTF graphs. As far as I can see, there is nothing to choose between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200L 4.

70-200L 4 IS
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=14260

70-200L 4
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7345
 
HoppyUK said:
What's 'nonsense' LOL is that when you bring up the test images, the 18-55 looks sharper than the 18-55 2.8 (which costs six times the price) when in real world picture taking it is not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I still don't follow you. When I visit the link to the comparison between the two lenses at 18mm f/4 and 17mm f/4, the f/2.8 lens is clearly sharper which agrees with what you're saying and also coincides with my own experience of both lenses.

According to the site, at what settings does the cheaper lens appear to be sharper than the f/2.8 lens?
 
DigitalRelish said:
Sorry, but I still don't follow you. When I visit the link to the comparison between the two lenses at 18mm f/4 and 17mm f/4, the f/2.8 lens is clearly sharper which agrees with what you're saying and also coincides with my own experience of both lenses.

According to the site, at what settings does the cheaper lens appear to be sharper than the f/2.8 lens?
Click to expand...

Look at the bottom set. This is the only comparison that matters TBH, as almost any lens will deliver very high sharpness in the centre. It's at the edges, at low f/numbers, that sorts the good from the ordinary.
 
HoppyUK said:
Look at the bottom set. This is the only comparison that matters TBH, as almost any lens will deliver very high sharpness in the centre. It's at the edges, at low f/numbers, that sorts the good from the ordinary.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Up until f/5.6, the 18-55 seems to be sharper than the 17-55.

It would be interesting to see if this is just particular to the copies of the lenses used for the test or whether the results are accurate or whether the test is actually flawed which I think is what you're suggesting (I'll need to read again after some sleep :) )
 
DigitalRelish said:
Ah, yes. Up until f/5.6, the 18-55 seems to be sharper than the 17-55.

It would be interesting to see if this is just particular to the copies of the lenses used for the test or whether the results are accurate or whether the test is actually flawed which I think is what you're suggesting (I'll need to read again after some sleep :) )
Click to expand...

Yes, it is depth of field at higher f/numbers that is making the lens sharper at f/5.6 and beyond, but because of natural field curvature which is not acommodated with a flat chart, we cannot see that the lens is actually very sharp at lower f/numbers.

I don't think it is a 'bad copy' thing. That would show up in other areas too.

This is only speculation, but it is based on a lot of prefessional testing of lenses. I am not party to the exact details of that particular test but I have found out as much as I can about how it is done, and it invloves a flat target, which is the first problem when all lenses exhibit field curvature to a greater or lesser extent. That is a lens' natural characteristic and it has to be 'pulled straight' in the lens design. Wide angles are especially prone.

The other thing is that lenses perform differently at different focusing distances, and all lenses (except macros) are optimised for longer distances closer to infinity. When you shove them right up close, artificially close, to a test target, they are way outside optimum operating range. In my experience this doesn't usually make a huge difference, but when you get to extremes, like the wide end of a wide zoom as here, it's going to be an issue.
 
There's also a good review on this website, where they claim the f/4 IS is the shapest zoom lens canon ever made.
 
Does it really matter which is sharper? I think dazzajl analysed it correctly:
dazzajl said:
Although, that's a little like comparing two scalpels. :)
Click to expand...
 
StewartR said:
Does it really matter which is sharper? I think dazzajl analysed it correctly:
Click to expand...

That would be fine if he hadn't prefaced it by saying the non IS was sharper even though he had never used one.

Obviously if you have spent a lot more for the IS one you wouldn't be keen on being told it wasn't as sharp as the non IS.

For me it is a handheld lens, it will probably never be used on a tripod, that wasn't what it was bought for, so the IS is going to produce sharper pictures.
 
What's wrong with comparing scalpels? If you're an opthalmic surgeon and you want the sharpest blades then why shouldn't you discuss the topic with like-minded people? :shrug:
 
Obviously if you have spent a lot more for the IS one you wouldn't be keen on being told it wasn't as sharp as the non IS.
Click to expand...

Presumably, you bought it largely for the IS function, as the IS function is responsible for a large percentage of the price. :shrug: As you've said, yours is not going to see a tripod much and with all kit, you need the thing that suits you best and that may not always be the sharpest lens.

After all, there wouldn't be much point in having the worlds sharpest lens if many of the shots you take with it have camera shake.

If I was buying today, it would more than likely be the IS version I would get but it didn't exist at the time. It looks like an amazingly versatile bit of kit and I know I'd be very happy, even if I believed the cheaper version was sharper.

Also, I didn't say the non IS was sharper. I said that all the info that has come my way leads me to believe that the non IS is slightly the sharper of two very sharp things.
 
DigitalRelish said:
What's wrong with comparing scalpels? If you're an opthalmic surgeon and you want the sharpest blades then why shouldn't you discuss the topic with like-minded people? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Absolutley nowt and when you're in the market for one, it pays to be informed. Not that it will make the slightest difference to the outcome of the op. ;)
 
dazzajl said:
Also, I didn't say the non IS was sharper. I said that all the info that has come my way leads me to believe that the non IS is slightly the sharper of two very sharp things.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have misread this..

dazzajl said:
I've never used the IS version but the non IS lens is said to be the sharper of the two.
Click to expand...

I take my guidance from reviewers that I've grown to trust, particularly the one I provided.

The non IS version is a different design, with more glass in it, so there is potential for a difference, and as Hoppy says they do vary a bit over the range of focal length.

On balance, though, my impression is that the IS is a better lens and worth the extra dosh if you can afford it.

It is horses for courses, for some people the f2.8 would be the best lens, but for me it would run the risk of being treated like the 100-400 and only taken out for special trips, where as the f4 is always going to be carried.
 
Just get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and be happy. It's way cheaper than the L glass (£410 or so), has IS, is 100mm longer and is still a quality lens.

George.
 
dazzajl said:
Absolutley nowt and when you're in the market for one, it pays to be informed. Not that it will make the slightest difference to the outcome of the op. ;)
Click to expand...

In my opinion, sharpness is an optical quality and that's what the OP asked about. I only joined in the discussion about sharpness after someone else introduced it into thread and said
the non IS lens is said to be the sharper of the two
Click to expand...
.
 
after someone else introduced it into thread and said
Click to expand...

Indeed, me. :)

I don't disagree with you at all. My original comment was aimed at reassuring the OP that getting the cheapy non IS version was not going to sacrifice good sharpness in their images.

We can bandy about different test results and real life reviews as long as we like, that is exactly what this thread is about but when it's all said and done, whichever the OP chooses, it will be one of the very sharpest zooms you can put on a canon. :)
 
dazzajl said:
I don't disagree with you at all. My original comment was aimed at reassuring the OP that getting the cheapy non IS version was not going to sacrifice good sharpness in their images.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that for the majority of people the difference in optical quality between the IS and non-IS will be indiscernable, but by the same token I wouldn't want to cast my own assumptions onto anyone elses requirements.

By the way, it's said by some that the f/4 IS version is the sharpest Canon zoom lens currently available ;)

To the Op, unless you're one of those people who demand the utmost best, fastest, sharpest, etc then the optical performance of any of the 4 Canon 70-200 lens is unlikely to disappoint. If you are then you might have to hire all 4 flavours from Stewart and determine which suits your needs best!
 
Nice comparision, buy lens for photography and buying scalpels for surgery. I like that :D
 
BadgerLover said:
Just get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and be happy. It's way cheaper than the L glass (£410 or so), has IS, is 100mm longer and is still a quality lens.

George.
Click to expand...

^^^ He's right you know. That's where the smart money goes ;)

But that didn't stop me buying the L lens, quite probably for non-optical and non-logical reasons.
 
HoppyUK said:
But that didn't stop me buying the L lens, quite probably for non-optical and non-logical reasons.
Click to expand...

The red ring? ;)

Seriously though... take a look at these two pages:
70-200 f/4L IS USM: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review

What the L has over the non-L, is a bit of extra sharpness (more at the long end and at f/11) and f/4 throughout the zoom range. The non-L, however, has an extra 100mm and you'll be able to buy another very decent lens with the money you save.

I know people like to buy L quality glass. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy having Canon's best quality glass on your camera. For a non-professional photographer, though, it can sometimes be better in the long-run to pick an excellent quality non-L lens and spend the rest (if you must) on another gem of a (non-L) lens.

I don't own a single L series lens. I'd love to (for the same reasons as Hoppy) but I like to buy non-L lenses which are still competitive with L's in terms of image quality but cost considerably less. Photography is already an expensive hobby :)

George.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top