Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Singapore, East Sider
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    hmm... with regards to the topic, well if you ask me, I'd go with 70-200 f4 IS, since you feel you're gonna sell your 70-200 2.8. i assume yours is of the non-IS variant.

    among the 4 70-200s, most would agree that 70-200 f4 IS is the sharpest among the range.
    as for whether f4 cuts it for indoor shoots, i'd say it probably would, if you're using the newer cameras with better high ISO performance. besides, comparing the 3 lenses TS has presented, the IS would probably help in many other situations besides indoor shoots.

    if you've got a good range of primes, then get the 135F2 as another staple, as the sharpness for this prime is one of the best around. also fares very well in low light (pretty needless to say why). =D i personally would go (optimus) prime all the way if i had the deep pockets.
    1 Camera Body and a couple lenses.

  2. #22

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    Quote Originally Posted by Headshotzx View Post
    TS, 70-200 2.8L IS not sharp enough at É2.8? Not sharp or not focusing correctly?
    By science, if TS is using IS while shooting at f2.8, it will never be sharper then using a 70-200 f2.8L without IS or a 70-200 f4L at f4.

    This is because the IS element is always moving in effort to counter shake.

    I have also read on some websites that 70-200 f2.8 is sharper on full-frame... but no source as i have forgot where it was.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    5,782

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    Quote Originally Posted by surrephoto View Post
    By science, if TS is using IS while shooting at f2.8, it will never be sharper then using a 70-200 f2.8L without IS or a 70-200 f4L at f4.

    This is because the IS element is always moving in effort to counter shake.

    I have also read on some websites that 70-200 f2.8 is sharper on full-frame... but no source as i have forgot where it was.
    TS is saying that his copy of the 70-200 is not sharp... but compared to what?
    Our pictures are our footprints. Itís the best way to tell people we were here - JoeMcnally | Flickr

  4. #24

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    If the camera was Pentax, Sony, Olympus...the 70-200mm F2.8 without a second thought. Lots of advantages of having body built in IS.
    You wont see me much less remember me but i am the guy who makes you look good.

  5. #25

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    Quote Originally Posted by surrephoto View Post
    This is because the IS element is always moving in effort to counter shake.
    Moving Effort causes camera shake seems reasonable, but what if we turn off that IS?

    Or it is the IS element (extra glasses) which cause the IQ? But why 70-200 f/4 IS is so so sharp... couldn't understand ...
    Canon EOS 5D w/ 35L 85L 135L 220L

  6. #26

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    Quote Originally Posted by Headshotzx View Post
    TS is saying that his copy of the 70-200 is not sharp... but compared to what?
    70-200 is razor sharp ...
    Canon EOS 5D w/ 35L 85L 135L 220L

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: 135mm f2.0 vs. 70-200mm f2.8 vs. 70-200mm f4 IS

    Quote Originally Posted by Reportage View Post
    If the camera was Pentax, Sony, Olympus...the 70-200mm F2.8 without a second thought. Lots of advantages of having body built in IS.
    Uh. Okay. So the TS is supposed to change systems?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •