Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II good enough to replace primes?

[Jed]

Here's one taken few days ago using this lens on 5D2:
No pp except resize

It's not a bad photo, but what does that tell you vis-a-vis that lens' performance in relation to a bunch of prime lenses?

 

[albertchng]

Here's one taken few days ago using this lens on 5D2:

1/1250 f2.8 200mm

No pp except resize

paiseh... uncle old liao, eyes no good... the right side of model's head, the hair merge with the black background? or no hair on right side of model's head?

likely a 135mm f2 can produce better result than your 200mm F2.8, subject too near a building to really throw the background out of focus... back in my younger days, i will use a 300mm F2.8 if i have the room & depth for such lenses... if not perhaps a 85mm F1.4 or even a 135mm F2 + a soft white reflector on the model's right.

zoom lenses, even one with fixed aperture of F2.8 can never beat a prime lenses. lesser glass in a lense produce better result.

 

[clioboy]

i agree..135L is sweeeeet...and not to mention much lighter.:bsmilie:

 

[Anthony Lee]

It's not a bad photo, but what does that tell you vis-a-vis that lens' performance in relation to a bunch of prime lenses?

Agreed, it's not a bad photo, but do you need a 6k system to do this?

 

[Jed]

zoom lenses, even one with fixed aperture of F2.8 can never beat a prime lenses. lesser glass in a lense produce better result.

Firstly, it's dubious that a zoom can never beat a prime lens. For instance, the 14-24/2.8 Nikon is widely regarded to be better than a lot of Nikon primes in its range. There are a lot of factors such as age of lens design that might mean that it's entirely plausible that a zoom will beat a prime.

For example there are many primes that struggle with CA due to their design from the 1980s or 1990s, that the equivalent more recently updated zoom doesn't suffer from.

"Never" is a very strong word to choose.

lesser glass in a lense produce better result.

Again, it's impossibly to make such a sweeping statement. This frequently held notion probably stems back to a time when zooms had lots of elements (and were poor) compared to the simple optical formulas of primes.

But take, for instance, new versions of the same lenses. Many are gaining more elements to help correct more optical defects than in the previous versions, and perform better as a consequence.

 

[Jed]

Agreed, it's not a bad photo, but do you need a 6k system to do this?

My point's not about the quality of the photo, it's about the fact that you can't tell anything about the system from it. Which, in a sense, is what you're trying to say.

Like I've said, a vast majority of people on CS wouldn't noticed the difference between a top notch performer and a less stellar performer. And for most of those who would notice, it probably makes not a jot of difference.

What is more noticeable, is Internet tittle tattle. People are more akin to notice person A saying lens X at f4.52 suffers from a 0.02 stop light leak if you shoot directly into the sun when the moon is full and the stars aligned, than actually notice it on their own lens through usage. And then soon the whole world panics and everyone thinks that lens X is the worst lens in the world even though, without the Internet, probably the only person who would've been aware of the "defect" is person A.

Incidentally the same holds true in reverse. Person B says lens Y is stunning, and person C will recount that to person D as if they have first hand knowledge when they don't, and soon the whole world thinks that's the best lens around.

 

[Anthony Lee]

My point's not about the quality of the photo, it's about the fact that you can't tell anything about the system from it. Which, in a sense, is what you're trying to say.

Like I've said, a vast majority of people on CS wouldn't noticed the difference between a top notch performer and a less stellar performer. And for most of those who would notice, it probably makes not a jot of difference.

What is more noticeable, is Internet tittle tattle. People are more akin to notice person A saying lens X at f4.52 suffers from a 0.02 stop light leak if you shoot directly into the sun when the moon is full and the stars aligned, than actually notice it on their own lens through usage. And then soon the whole world panics and everyone thinks that lens X is the worst lens in the world even though, without the Internet, probably the only person who would've been aware of the "defect" is person A.

Incidentally the same holds true in reverse. Person B says lens Y is stunning, and person C will recount that to person D as if they have first hand knowledge when they don't, and soon the whole world thinks that's the best lens around.

Agreed. My remark was actually directed at the photo and question whether such photos require 6k systems( 5dm2 plus 70-200f2.8L IS II) to produce.

 

[mezzoutopia]

It "felt" sharp? That's probably the most honest comment in the whole thread.

Perhaps I'm overracting and maybe you did actually also test the lens properly, in which case accept my apologies. Although to be honest, if you did just feel it, then like I said, take it as a compliment that you were being honest.

If you did test it, did you compare it with anything else? Take pictures of it hand held at slow shutter speeds at high ISOs?

There's too much faff around.

But... it's an L lens of course it's sharp.

But... I have a psychic ability, I can tell how sharp a lens is merely from feeling it.

A little like Zeiss lenses inherently have a magic glow, nevermind Leica. You know inherently from the blue motif and little red dot that it will be better than anything else out there.

/swoon.

If it needs saying, the vast majority of users on this forum would never notice the difference in optical quality between that lens and a cheap 70-200. Most of those who would notice, wouldn't necessarily suffer from having a cheap 70-200 either.

My time at MS Color was short and it is to recommend a friend to buy 550D and I have no intention to buy the 70-200 lens as I already knew the price and it a lens that will not suit my shooting needs, although honestly speaking, I can well afford it However, being a long time customer of MS, Florence wanted me to have a "feel' of the lens and I take the opportunity to test some shots on the 550D. As the sky was cloudy as it has been raining on Sunday afternoon, quite a few shots were taken handheld at 70mm and 200mm at maximum aperture. From the image review using the camera LCD at maximum zoom, I can see (I use the word feel as most of us know the LCD is not a good test) that the image appeared very sharp at the center and edge. It is definitely better than a cheap lens eg. the 18-135 lens that I tried earlier on the same body and defintely sharper than the 35-350L and similar to the 300LF4 lens that I had. Btw, I took pixs of words and signs on shops for reference. The lens is very well build and the zoom ring is very different and feels better compared to the usual rotating zoom lens. Overall, in terms of build, this lens is very solid, well made and worth the money. Whether it is better than the older 70-200, most of you have probably read the review. For the photographer who can afford this lens and it suits their shooting style, I am sure they will not regret buying this lens. They will also not care that they have spent 6k of eqpt to take some decent pixs instead of prize winning pixs as the sense of owning a good piece of camera equipment will make them feel good and their acquisition will not be obsoleted too soon when they move up the upgrading path.

 

[neech7]

how much is this lens selling for?

Too much :bsmilie:

Around S$3300-3400.

 

[m3lv1nh0]

how much is this lens selling for?

Juts brought one yesterday @$3350, TK Photo, Funan.