Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 non is opinions

cuthbert

cuthbert

Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,918
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
i nearly pulled the trigger on one of these but a slight (!) funding crisis has given me a slight reprieve.

anybody has/had this lens? what are your thoughts? any example images?

the new MK2 IS version does look sharper at the long end, but then it is more expensive and way beyond my budget, but does it notice in the real world?

any thoughts?
 
Yep - I've got one. It is very good but sometimes a bit strange. I think the strangeness it due to it being slower to acquire focus compared to a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8. Those longer lenses are amazingly fast to pick up focus - almost instanteous - which makes the 70-200 feel slow by comparison.

However, saying that, it is lovely in its own right and if you haven't used the longer lenses the focus drive will still feel plenty fast and image quality is excellent.

A pic:

I0000LN.1SClR7qQ.jpg


Another pic. As you can see the bokeh is nice and smooth too.

I0000nBBkWtbLijY.jpg
 
Last edited:
Love mine , lack of I.s doesn't really bother me, one less thing to go wrong lol. Very sharp, I had the F4 I.s variant before and much prefer the 2.8 non I.s as the shots have a slightly more creamy quality about them.
 
thank you both. pretty much made up my mind... now need to find some cash!

the bokeh does look wonderful for a 2.8 lens, that's what attracted me to it.

how does it perform wide open at 200mm. the digital picture crops show a bit of softness, but these crops can be a bit misleading... so i'd be interest do know how you find it.

how fast does it focus compared to the 135/f2 (if you have it?)... that's a very fast focussing lens.
 
Literally just acquired one yesterday... haven't really had a play with it other than a couple of crappy duck shots but I'm super happy with it, AF and sharpness are top notch... better (slightly) than the f/2.8 IS version.
 
Had another quick play with it tonight... It's lovely, takes a teleconverter really really well. It's sharp at f/2.8 and even sharper at f/4. I loved my f/4 IS but this is the next level really - you won't be disappointed :)

Ads!
 
thank you adam. i look forward to seeing a few of your shots :-)

how is the bokeh looking?
 
cuthbert said:
thank you adam. i look forward to seeing a few of your shots :-)

how is the bokeh looking?
Click to expand...

The bokeh is looking :woot::woot: dude.

They're still the typical duck shots at the moment... this is worst bit of getting a new lens, having to wait for it to be used for something other than ducks :suspect:
 
Its a great lens not used one for years but still great.Do you need f2.8? if not go for the f4IS as thats even better.
 
Im also after this lens, i dont know wether to go for the IS or non IS, will i need IS with the 7D as that takes 8pps anyway. Looking to take pictures of subjects moving at speed.

Also is there a mk2 of the non IS version with 70-200L?
 
john182rs said:
Im also after this lens, i dont know wether to go for the IS or non IS, will i need IS with the 7D as that takes 8pps anyway. Looking to take pictures of subjects moving at speed.

Also is there a mk2 of the non IS version with 70-200L?
Click to expand...

IS won't help if the subject is moving.
 
Cuthbert, asuming you're not too far away from Norwich, you're welcome to have a play with my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L.....just drop me a PM if you're interested! :thumbs:
 
i am about to buy the 7D with a 15-85mm IS USM and a 70-210mm f4 L IS USM but now should i go for the 7-210mm f2.8 L USM mk1 ........... i have read reviews and tests that the F4 is a better lens, but reading above i am now not sure.... anybody used both as they are prices very similar.
 
The f/4 is sharper wide open, that's true. The f/2.8 is only slightly softer at wide open but put the f/2.8 at f/4 and they're about the same. So you've got a lens that can do the same as the 70-200 f/4 but goes a stop faster when you need it.
 
Here's some off my copy Mark just from tonight - hopefully this will get you started:
Unprocessed other than straight RAW -> JPG conversion.

70mm f/2.8
IMG_5474.jpg


100% Crop
IMG_5474-2.jpg


Personally I think wide end and wide open is a bit naff BUT... I am using a ninjibongo filter which I forgot to remove at the time. So I'm very sure that the IQ would improve somewhat without it on...

200mm f/2.8
IMG_5477.jpg


100% crop
IMG_5477-2.jpg
 
70mm f/4
IMG_5479.jpg


100% Crop
IMG_5479-2.jpg


200mm f/4
IMG_5486.jpg


100% crop
IMG_5486-2.jpg


I'll update this post if I do get round to shooting without the filter :bang::bang:

Ads
 
did you manage to get out with your new lens today, Adam?

at 70mm, how good would this lens be for indoor portraits? what's the working distance and how much of the subject would you get in the frame at say 6ft?

i'm doing an indoor portrait shoot in a few weeks, as i only have the 135 which is way too long i'm just wonder if this lens would be a great deal better ?

i know a 50mm or wider would probably be better for this application but 70mm doesn't seem far off really.
 
cuthbert said:
did you manage to get out with your new lens today, Adam?

at 70mm, how good would this lens be for indoor portraits? what's the working distance and how much of the subject would you get in the frame at say 6ft?

i'm doing an indoor portrait shoot in a few weeks, as i only have the 135 which is way too long i'm just wonder if this lens would be a great deal better ?

i know a 50mm or wider would probably be better for this application but 70mm doesn't seem far off really.
Click to expand...

Did you miss my offer??! :thinking:
 
Slimbert said:
Did you miss my offer??! :thinking:
Click to expand...


obviously your reputation precedes you........... :exit:


Cuthbert...... non being a Canon user, then obviously the lens is of no interest to me, however, have known Slimbert for a while and had a look through his f4 non IS right through to the f2.8IS......... (just for curiosity)

My opinion.......

If your camera doesn't have inbuilt IS ...... then you will benefit from it....... as far as I know you can switch between IS in vertical only or H+V ie.. you can still pan.........

Seriously - take him up on his offer - I know you are not looking for a 2.8 IS but the focal range is the same..........
 
I'd rather the Sigma - it costs as much as Canon's f/4 non IS lol...
 
Have a look on my site, almost everything is shot using it and a 1.4tc.

I had one before my current lens which was pretty poor at 2.8, showing lots of CA. It was exchanged and i love my current one.

Here are a few favourites, shot on a 1d3

No TC @ 2.8

850468123_buGkh-L.jpg


+ 1.4TC @ F4

964937898_UxVuQ-L-1.jpg


No TC @ 2.8

978879374_hY6qV-L-1.jpg
 
slimbert, thank you very much... i did indeed miss your offer, it somehow got buried with all the images! :bonk:

nick, absolutely awesome images and wonderful bokeh there.

i am a bit far out for norwich (more king's lynn way) - i'm 99.9% mind made up on it now, it's just a few things seem contradictory:

on the digital picture the crops seem to indicate that at 70mm f2.8 is sharper than 200mm f2.8, yet adam's crops seem to be the opposite of this - so really is this a consistent experience amongst users of the lens?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


the mtf charts also seem to indicate that 70mm has lower contrast and sharpness than at 200mm (at f8 and f2.8), but as you can see the digital picture's test chart results seem to show the exact opposite (corner performance seems to improve at 200mm, but the centre is still softer). so are these flawed? the review says several samples of the lens were tested and performed similarly.

in any case, question is, is this difference in contrast at both ends of the focal length truly visible in a (un)processed real world image?

when i look at the mtf chart for the 135 f2 i realise just how spoilt optically i've been... high contrast and sharpness across the frame almost as good wide open than at f8. it's also surprising that primes like the 35 1.4 have quite mediocre mtf scores, yet are capable of truly awesome images.
 
Last edited:
ALL the Canon L 70-200mm lenses are great, don't worry about the image quality from any of them....:thumbs: Also, stop looking at graphs and charts!! :annoyed:

I've owned three out of the 5 70-200mm L models, and they have all been incredible, the only one I have never used is the new f2.8 IS MkII....which I'm sure will continue the trend of all the 70-200mm L's being very very good!

Stop worrying, buy the highest spec (read: most expensive) model you can afford, and get out and use it!! :thumbs:
 
sorry Mark, only got round to taking photos without the ninjibongo filter earlier this evening...

much better results (at 70 mm) imo. These were done on FF so you've got an idea of the capabilities of the lens across the image circle.

70 mm f/2.8 ISO 200
IMG_5536.jpg


100% crop
IMG_5536-3.jpg


200 mm f/2.8 ISO 500
IMG_5541.jpg


100% crop
IMG_5541-3.jpg


hope that clears up the garbage 70 mm examples I stuck up previously! :D

ads
 
thanks again, Adam. This really is a great lens. Much much better than I was expecting. i can feel credit card is going take a bleeding..... anytime now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top