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

[engrmariano]

i already knew this issue before i bought my 2.8 IS, its known that f4 IS is the sharpest among the four 70-200 and was choosing between f4IS & 2.8IS but decided to get the 2.8IS.

why?... i shoot alot in lowlight & the bokeh it produce is just amazing... and it serves me alot during Singapore F1 GP.:thumbsup:

so, i have no regrets buying this lens even if say in front of my face that the f4 IS version is sharper.

 

[r32]

Four different Canon lenses for the same range to suit every budget and need. I would say that Canon is spoiling us for choices, no one should have anything to complain about.

I once had a very sharp copy of a F/4L non IS, even when I stopped my F/2.8L IS down to F/4, the sharpness does not compare. Let alone wide open then.

You just buy what you can afford, different people have different priorities. Some want the large aperture, some want the IS, some are constrained by budget, and yet others want the sharpness. If the F/4L IS is as be-all-end-all as you say, then Canon may as well delete the other 3 lenses from the line up.

But the fact is, Canon sees it fit to produce 4 lenses to suit any conceivable need for this range. So buy what you think is right for you, and don't think any less of people who want to spend more money, because their needs are different from yours.

I have had my 2.8 IS for 3 years, and not about to let it go anytime soon. I like it because f the fast F-stop which buys me shutter speed (cranking up ISO introduces noise no matter what you say), the large aperture improves AF speed, IS when I want to shoot handheld in marginal conditions as I never bring out my tripod, and the weight of the entire setup builds me nice muscles in my forearms. ;p

 

[TeckHua]

Well I agree with you. Everyone has theirs own priority for the lens they pay. It could be just me, I just cannot compromise for Optical quality for the premium I have to pay. F4IS is just for me probably.

 

[calebk]

I wouldn't call it a "compromise" exactly, because for what every review is worth, the lens produces images that are sharp enough to be all over newspaper pages, large prints, you name it. It is only when you compare it at a pixel-peeping level that the difference is noticeable.

Do also note that resolving power is not the only thing that people look out for. Events shooters will take the f/2.8 IS any day when it comes to indoor events. Not sharp? I don't really think so. Perhaps it loses out to the f/4 IS, but you will hardly notice it in applicable situations. Really.

 

[Kit]

I think some are just too obsessed with IQ they fail to see the purposes of getting the right lenses to match their needs. IQ isn't all there is to it for selecting lenses.

 

[cg171s]

I think some are just too obsessed with IQ they fail to see the purposes of getting the right lenses to match their needs. IQ isn't all there is to it for selecting lenses.

I agree with Kit.... In the end, just buy the lens that suits your need.

If you decide to get the 2.8 IS, then just think that the pros who covers world events are using it... Surely the quality is not that bad :bsmilie:

 

[Headshotzx]

Because there is a market for people who want the focal length, aperture, IS module and sharpness in a single package.

It'll be my next purchase.

 

[Redkangoo]

This lens is super heavy weight man...just like the 24-70 F2.8.

 

[PictureFreak]

This lens is super heavy weight man...just like the 24-70 F2.8.

Haha, it is heavier than the 24-70mm. But both lenses are really worth their weight

 

[mightybod]

Above everything it's all about what one needs. I got mine because of my needs, shooting under low lighting, indoors, although weight is an issue, but overall, i am very happy with the results of the quality of the shots thus i give 2 thumbs up to the 2.8IS. Having previously also owned the F4, it does not give me the versatility that the F2.8IS could.
As for reviews, its good to read, good to hear from fellow CSers and even friends who use the lenses, but until you try it out and come to a conclusion yourself it'll only be others' opinions. I came to that conclusion regarding my own dilema, 24-70mm 2.8 or 24-105mm 4IS.

 

[Old Boy]

Just bought one last Sat after a long consideration and reading reviews about this lens. Most reviews indicate this lens will deliver good quality image at f4.0 So why not if IQ is only marginally lower at f2.8 and will perform without flash in most of the night events ? Additional issurance if batteries run dry :dunno:

 

[ed9119]

To me when I pay for high price, I expect high IQ ...

If that sentence was literally true.......... :bsmilie:

 

[imouyang]

Well... This simply reminds me of the same argument ppl give for 16-35 and 17-40... Abt 17-40 being much sharper and 16-35 not worth the money... But yet... many ppl still own the 16-35...

As wad many says, it boils down to ur own needs... There are a lot to consider apart from IQ as many have mentioned b4... For me, i own the 70-200 2.8 non-IS... Reason very simple... I need fast AF so i got 2.8... It's an undeniable fact that 2.8 will focus faster than 4.0 esp on my camera body which only activates cross pt on 2.8... I personally will take a 2.8 lens anytime cuz seriously, i dun print big so i dun need fantastic IQ and i believe that AF is more impt than IQ...

No pt arguing Just spend the money where it is worth it (to you)...

 

[KHC]

Yes , F4 Is is sharper than F2.8 IS.
But remember , the technology each of the lens having. :think:
F4 IS can stop up to 4 stop, F2.8 Is up to 3 stop.
F4 IS has a fluorite element. where F2.8 is have UD.
If F2.8 is have element of fluorite, sure it will bite F4 is.

When you need better separation of subject from backgroup (boken). you will ask why i don't has...
When you need another extra stop in low night.you will ask why i don't has .....

...... F2.8 IS.

increase of ISO is help in some area, there will be trade off on noise HE HE HE.

further trade off weight and ex$$$$.

Each lens serve it own niche, depend the user choice.
waiting their release of F2.8 IS MK2................:lovegrin:

 

[sanfong]

I tot I was unfortunate tat I can't buy f2.8, but now after read this thread, my love for my f4 IS is more deeper, almost went crazy to sleep with it hahahaha...

 

[calebk]

I tot I was unfortunate tat I can't buy f2.8, but now after read this thread, my love for my f4 IS is more deeper, almost went crazy to sleep with it hahahaha...

There is no need to seek assurance for a purchase, unless you buy to "join the crowd". You should buy what you need.

 

[engrmariano]

FTW! f2.8 IS wouldnt be popular if it doesnt deliver what pros need.:sticktong

 

[Kit]

There is no need to seek assurance for a purchase, unless you buy to "join the crowd". You should buy what you need.

You know? I never thought of linking an article from Rockwell to here but this one actually worth reading..... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

For a long time now; since DSLRs became readily available to the masses, there has been this obsession with sharpness. If you'd probe further, its not difficult to realise that most of the time, this obsession stems out from the need for self-comforting rather than a technical requirement. The post you were responding to proved this point. The other hallmark of this obsession is the pursuing of sharpness without even knowing what sharpness entails.

 

[leslens]

thanks for the link

its a good read!

 

[David]

It's really amazing... Reviews of lenses, good or bad, differ based on when you read them.

The 70-200 f/2.8IS has existed for several years and I have never heard people complaining it's "bad", till I read this post.

Sometimes, I really don't know if its the inconsistency on Canon's QC or who does the review and when.

Mostly, I do know that lens reviews rarely give consistent results. Do a search and you will realize one moment, someone says "My xx-xx mm lens is not sharp". 5 others will chip in Yeah, don't expect good results.

Praise the same lens at another "season", and you will get 5 other totally opposite review, such as, Indeed, this lens ROCKS!

It also depends on what you nit pick about. If you like to zoom in and study pixels in an image, maybe the difference between 2 comparisons is telling. But otherwise, really, if it's an L, there is little to complain about.

I take reviews with a pinch of salt. Ultimately, it all depends on what you are looking for and what your realistic expectations are.