Why are ppl still buying 70-200mm 2.8 IS ??

[TeckHua]

Hi Guys,

I know the topic has been discussed like hundred of times but I really wonder why are ppl still buying this lens despite the numerous review on the bad IQ especially at longer side (more than 135mm to 200mm) ?? Can we really trust on the reviews on net ? But I have CS bro telling me why they sell it away after short period possession .. not just weight but also IQ ... Anyone care to share ?? If its that bad, is Canon coming out the Mark II for this lens ??

 

[TeckHua]

I am referring to Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM ...

 

[crazysurfer]

Hi Guys,

I know the topic has been discussed like hundred of times but I really wonder why are ppl still buying this lens despite the numerous review on the bad IQ especially at longer side (more than 135mm to 200mm) ?? Can we really trust on the reviews on net ? But I have CS bro telling me why they sell it away after short period possession .. not just weight but also IQ ... Anyone care to share ?? If its that bad, is Canon coming out the Mark II for this lens ??

I agree, among the 4 lenses, the f2.8 IS is the worst and the best is the f4 IS as it gives the sharpest pic of all. :thumbsup: If you read the reviews, you will agree. :think:

Save the additional $1K on the f2.8 IS and go for the f4 IS.

 

[KangS]

It really is about the 'quality' of the image rather than the sharpness. If you've used it before, you'll find that the lens is excellent for shooting people and most things that fill up at least 25% of the frame. At A4 to poster A3 size, for most purposes, the supposedly 'sharpness' dictated by most of these reviews are a non-issue. Properly exposed, these issues are not even noticeable on print of these sizes that most people use it for.

As for why pay the premium ? The f/2.8 produces a shallow DOF which cannot be attained at the same focal length by the f/4 brethren. It also produces a background blur that rivals some of the specialist lenses that many crave for. The IS module allows the lens to be used in more difficult situations.

Which is why, for 99% of events use, the f/2.8 IS is quite the ideal lens despite its lack of 'sharpness' compared to the f/4 IS.

I have one... maybe that's why I'm probably biased too... ;p:bsmilie:

 

[TeckHua]

EXACTLY But I know there's happy CSers out there who own it and like it .. to me 70-200mm F4 IS is the best just that its not tt fast .. Hope Canon can come out Mark II to replace the current version .. Or are they trying to clear their stocks before releasing the Mark II .. Any guys from Canon here ?

 

[Dream Merchant]

Lots of factors goes into play when a person makes a decision about a lense purchase or usage.

Someone mentioned 'sharpness' when TS talked about IQ.

IQ is generally a combination of several factors, and not sharpness alone. Besides, the appearance of 'sharpness' by itself is already determined by several factors other than resolution alone and in the digital domain where any amount of post processing is applied, it appears that the slight 'loss' of 'apparent sharpness' in the 70-2 28IS becomes negligible.

 

[Dithiolium]

Some ppl buy equipment cos reviews say its the sharpest.
Some ppl buy equipment cos it allows them to get the $$ making shot.
The rest buy according to budget constraints.

 

[Prince]

I have personally tested the 70-200 2.8 is at a shop and is quite disappointed with the results - especially given its price.

Hence, I feel that I would recommend 70-200 f4 is for range and 135 f2 for speed.

It adds up to around the same price!

 

[wdEvA]

to me. all the 4 series of the 70-200 are great. just that whichever is sharper, end of the day, they all are sharp lenses. =)

 

[TeckHua]

To me when I pay for high price, I expect high IQ ... Since it cant even match the cousin F4 IS which is 1K cheaper in term of IQ .. Why should I go for the 2.8 ?? Just for the speed ? Which sooner we can pump up the ISO to a good acceptable image. No ??

 

[Dream Merchant]

Yes, your argument makes sense, especially with the newer sensors.

And with the new 5D MkII coming out, shooting at ISO 3200/6400 may become common-place! I can't wait for the 60 or 70D with ultra usable 6400 ISO!

But one difference is that the bokeh on a 2.8 is always nicer. Can't run away from that factor, if it's an important one to the photographer.

 

[TeckHua]

Yup, good bokeh can also be found on cheaper lens with the same speed or faster .. at lower price then .. ex.

EF 135mm f/2L USM (Yen131,000/US$900) RS$1,399 - CP$1,125/ CP-M$1380 / MS$1350 / AP$1365 / OP$1270 (Grey) / JO$1160/ TK$1155

EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (Yen54,000/US$370) RS$680 - CP$550

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (Yen118,000/US$660) RS$1,499 - CP$1,200 / MS$1,208

and all these are at least 1k cheaper ...

 

[ahbian]

Yup, good bokeh can also be found on cheaper lens with the same speed or faster .. at lower price then .. ex.

EF 135mm f/2L USM (Yen131,000/US$900) RS$1,399 - CP$1,125/ CP-M$1380 / MS$1350 / AP$1365 / OP$1270 (Grey) / JO$1160/ TK$1155

EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (Yen54,000/US$370) RS$680 - CP$550

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (Yen118,000/US$660) RS$1,499 - CP$1,200 / MS$1,208

and all these are at least 1k cheaper ...

Partly because you are comparing a zoom with primes. But I do agree with you, I would get the 135mm over the 70-200mm F2.8 IS. Anyway, different people, different needs.

 

[Mystix]

Hi Guys,

I know the topic has been discussed like hundred of times but I really wonder why are ppl still buying this lens despite the numerous review on the bad IQ especially at longer side (more than 135mm to 200mm) ?? Can we really trust on the reviews on net ? But I have CS bro telling me why they sell it away after short period possession .. not just weight but also IQ ... Anyone care to share ?? If its that bad, is Canon coming out the Mark II for this lens ??

I dun own this lens but could u care elaborate? Because this is something new to me.
My impression from the reviews is that this is one of the most coveted lens and has excellent iq?
You're talking about the EF70-200L F 2.8 IS rite?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[TeckHua]

Yes. Please see the reviews and checkout the website to make comparisons with 70-200mm F4 IS. You will be shock ..

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/199-canon-ef-70-200mm-f28-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=2

 

[khtee]

can F4 use for low light? The answer is definitely out. Wait till you get to use F4 in low light situation then you will appreciate the good for F2.8 . Probably that will be your answer to your question above. It is not who has a sharper image. A Prime lens always beat Zoom lens in term of sharpness. That's my 2 cents.

 

[Kit]

People will buy the f/2.8 IS if they need it. On fair ground, f/2.8 is still faster than f/4 no matter how you compare. If you don't like it, don't get it. I don't see the point of all these hassle.

Back to your question. Can we trust all these reviews? No; because most of the time, they contradict each other and leaves you none the wiser. Tests are based on different objectives and fact that there are variations in copies of lenses, no one can tell you conclusively how they will perform. You should be spending time assessing your needs and if necessary, work your way around the lens limitation.

 

[TeckHua]

At the beginning, I am comparing with F4IS version .. check the review link I posted

 

[natx]

Reason as to why people by this lens most of the time is because they need it, for one of the few things it has to offer:

f2.8 Bokeh (by far this is the fastest on zoom lenses)
Zoom (70-200mm)
f2.8 low light capability (ok, arguably can bump up the ISO as you mentioned earlier)

There must definitely be a certain level of sharpness in any picture, but of course if you pixel peep, this guy will lose out to the f4 but as I mentioned above, if you shoot portraits in low light (either or, or both) the f2.8 will definitely help you accomplish your purpose. The shallow DOF here can really work to your advantage.

When I shoot on assignment, my primes will give me tack sharp images, but it is really hard to move about sometimes and this is where zooms give you the flexibility of framing your shot.

And to answer your qn about whether or not online reviews can be trusted, well, they can be used as a guide, but at the end of the day, they shouldnt be used solely for making the purchasing decision. Try it, (rent it if you must) and evaluate since it is an investment.

 

[PictureFreak]

I agree the F4IS has slightly better IQ than the f/2.8 IS, but it is not that obvious unless you really scrutinize the image carefully. The 2.8 is a huge plus especially in low light conditions. I have used my 2.8IS for weddings, landscapes, night and day shots at all focal lengths and i am very very satisfied with the results. Even with the 1.4x, the results are still very good in my opinion. Here is an example with 1.4x

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luhaiwong/2810231219/sizes/l/in/set-72157607023209769/

The major review websites like fredmiranda, digital picture, luminous landscapes, dpreview all give the 2.8IS very good ratings....Like a previous forummer mentioned, all the 70-200 lens give very high IQ. Just depends on what suits your needs best.... Get the one that you feel the most comfortable working with. Go to the shop and try out the lenses...this will help your decision making