Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II review
- Thread starter tonylim
- Start date
Yr friend kana chopped.. i bought it for 3.1k only much cheaper and better center sharpness the the canon Mk2
You dont mind tell us where you get mk2 lens with this price from?
Even cheaper than HK!
How do you know that? Mounted both lenses on the SAME camera and shot the exact same scene side-by-side for comparison? Otherwise, don't make empty claims.
base on photozone reviews lar. i believe such simple reviews u can compare right?? anyway same to u dun make empty claims..
Last edited:
base on photozine reviews lar. i believe such simple reviews u can compare right?? anyway same to u dun make empty claims..
Wrong. Photozone reviews does not allow you to make DIRECT comparisons.
Canon FF tests are carried out on 21 MP 5D2.
Nikon FF tests are carried out on 24 MP D3X
And if you can read English, it is stated very EXPLICITLY everywhere on the site (e.g. here): "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems."
The only 'comparison' you can make is the relative performance of, say, the edges to the center for each lens. And THIS is straight from the horse's mouth: "70-200 VR II soon, yes. I'm afraid, though, that the new benchmark has been set by the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II."
So, if you have no concrete data to add, then, do not make empty claims.
Last edited:
Based on the MTF chart it is clear the nikon is the better lens in center sharpness and the canon better corner sharpness.. all from so called yr so called horse mouth... Review can only be use as a reference.. I only trust my own eyes and until i am able to test both lenses i can have my own conclusion and not believe solely on any horse's mouth ..:bsmilie:
If tests results are not comparable across the different systems how can the horse presume the new benchmark has been set by the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II?? Like stepping on own toes.. LOL
Last edited:
Which MTF charts? Those presented by manufacturers are theoretical stuff, and are not meaningful.
Those presented by Photozone are measured on DIFFERENT cameras: 24 MP vs 21 MP.
How to set benchmarks? Simple. Look at maximum sharpness that can be achieved by lens relative to performance of sensor. Now look at the performance wide open: both center and edges. See how it evolves as the lens is stopped down. Judge from there. Not very difficult, is it?
You get to test both lenses on the SAME camera (via adapters) shooting the same scene one after another? Good. Now, show the side-by-side photos. Also, did you tripod mount the camera? Use manual focusing (to eliminate calibration errors)? Use cable release (to eliminate mirror vibrations)?
Last edited:
oh pls enlighten us with all those benchmarks and comparisons using same camera of same mega pixel using both nikon 70-200VR2 and then canon 70-200 mk2 for yr reply above... and also show us comparison and benckmarks for all this lenses u stated in this reply below Mounted both lenses on the SAME camera and shot the exact same scene side-by-side for comparison? Otherwise, don't make empty claims.
Last edited:
I bought my from SLR R..
Strange just call up SLR Revo, are you sure the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II is selling at that price? :think:
If you read the earlier thread,I think they are talking about nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR II.
a) I NEVER claim one lens out-resolves another lens the same way you did. If you want to make such claims, the lenses MUST be mounted on the same camera and tested vigorously. You were the one who says the center portion of one lens is sharper than that on another lens. But you could NEVER provide any supporting evidence to back yourself up.
b) Since you are quite slow, let me repeat myself here on how benchmarks or comparisons are made:
Look at maximum sharpness that can be achieved by lens relative to performance of sensor. Now look at the performance wide open: both center and edges. See how it evolves as the lens is stopped down. Judge from there.
So, if on one lens, you look at the measurements and see a HUGE difference between the edge and the center performance (e.g. Nikon 10-24) and you don't see the same on another lens (e.g. 14-24 f/2.8), then it is VERY obvious which one is the better lens.
Another example: compare Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS vs Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Everything else being similar, just look at 24 mm extreme edge performance at f/2.8. It is rather obvious one easily trumps the other.
Now, compare Canon 10-22 vs Nikon 10-24. Examine the edge performance at 10 mm wide-open. On Canon, resolution of edge is 77% that of center, but on Nikon that ratio drops DRAMATICALLY to 44%. The weird thing is that the 10-24 is released AFTER the 14-24.
c) So, you see, I am consistent and I can easily back myself up. You, on the other hand, cannot.
Perhaps you feel sore that the lens which cost you a fortune is not THE benchmark (like those poor sods who forked out a fortune for the rather mediocre canon 50 f/1.2L lens). But you can find solace that it is, after all, the best lens in its category for your mount. And what you do with it is what really counts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
