Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II review

[Omega23]

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.

You keep talking the lenses MUST be mounted on the same camera and tested vigorously yet u show the 2 links the lenses use on two different bodies... you are the one that is slow and contradicting in your replies..:bsmilie:

 

[Omega23]

Perhaps see if ppl selling 2nd hand len for this haha....

Not so fast bah.. my friend in HK just got a set for ard 3.2k sing dollars..

 

[doodah]

You keep talking the lenses MUST be mounted on the same camera and tested vigorously yet u show the 2 links the lenses use on two different bodies... you are the one that is slow and contradicting in your replies..:bsmilie:

I can only conclude you are illiterate

 

[El loco]

Exactly, talking about Nikon rubbish in a Canon subforum

HAHAHA! I so agree with u.

 

[Omega23]

I can only conclude you are illiterate

who is the illiterate?? You yrself said must compare apple to apple yet you insist in comparing apple with orange.. Obviously you are trolling...Comparing the center to the edge different in resolutions for 2 different lenses on 2 different sensor sizes... and you can conclude which is the better lens.. You are really smart... nothing to say.. i rest my case here.. continue yr trolling

 

[doodah]

who is the illiterate?? You yrself said must compare apple to apple yet you insist in comparing apple with orange.. Obviously you are trolling...Comparing the center to the edge different in resolutions for 2 different lenses on 2 different sensor sizes... and you can conclude which is the better lens.. You are really smart... nothing to say.. i rest my case here.. continue yr trolling

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. Canon 10-22), then it is VERY obvious which one is the better lens. BOTH are mounted on APS-C cameras.

c) A Nikon user who comes to the Canon forum to make BASELESS claims he cannot support = Troll. Why else are you here?

 

[tortise]

Exactly, talking about Nikon rubbish in a Canon subforum

i guess since the refence to Nikon stuff is it's not very constructive and based on some personal views, i think the intention of that dude is pretty questionable. hats off to the brother who's trying hard to explain but hitting a brick wall. :mad2:I think most of us get what you're saying except a very select individual

 

[tortise]

Yr friend kana chopped.. i bought it for 3.1k only much cheaper and better center sharpness the the canon Mk2

who is the illiterate?? You yrself said must compare apple to apple yet you insist in comparing apple with orange.. Obviously you are trolling...Comparing the center to the edge different in resolutions for 2 different lenses on 2 different sensor sizes... and you can conclude which is the better lens.. You are really smart... nothing to say.. i rest my case here.. continue yr trolling

really confusing... u talking about yourself here?

anyway i hope you really rest your case here as you mentioned. no real benefit in stating a nikon lens is cheaper and much better than a canon lens in a canon forum, and on a thread dedicated to the canon lens. i think that is the real definition of trolling.

hope this thread can continue with more constructive stuff henceforth, not that i want to buy this lens, but good to know how different lenses are measuring up (whether disappointment or good performer)

 

[El loco]

I am no expert in looking at mtf charts and scrutinizing photos to compare sharpness at center

or corner but all i can say is that this lens is definitely a few steps above the mk1 in all

aspects. Oh so loving it! :thumbsup:

 

[defn]

This lens is even more droolworthy when you use it with the 2x TC. Take a look at this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0.

 

[scubagolfer]

You use extender on your 70-200? Thinking of buying, with 7D will make it 640mm

 

[Yoh]

You use extender on your 70-200? Thinking of buying, with 7D will make it 640mm

Yes you can use extender with it.

 

[doodah]

You use extender on your 70-200? Thinking of buying, with 7D will make it 640mm

Some IMPORTANT warning here.

a) Not all teleconverters are made the same. Some are better than others. Please check this out.

b) It'll be good to bring your lens + camera to test the TC before purchasing it. For example, the Kenko/Teleplus Pro 300 DGX teleconverters have limitations on some lenses. See this. Not sure about compatibility with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2 'cos it's so new.

 

[scubagolfer]

Thanks for the warning, thinking of getting the Canon TC. Hopefully it is the most compatible. But, still, i think i will heed your advice and bring it to try..

Some IMPORTANT warning here.

a) Not all teleconverters are made the same. Some are better than others. Please check this out.

b) It'll be good to bring your lens + camera to test the TC before purchasing it. For example, the Kenko/Teleplus Pro 300 DGX teleconverters have limitations on some lenses. See this. Not sure about compatibility with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2 'cos it's so new.

 

[soons]

Do note you F-stop will reduce when u use teleconverters as well.

 

[Lionheart86]

Yeah, Niks shld go back to their own forum and troll for all they want.....:bsmilie:

really confusing... u talking about yourself here?

anyway i hope you really rest your case here as you mentioned. no real benefit in stating a nikon lens is cheaper and much better than a canon lens in a canon forum, and on a thread dedicated to the canon lens. i think that is the real definition of trolling.

hope this thread can continue with more constructive stuff henceforth, not that i want to buy this lens, but good to know how different lenses are measuring up (whether disappointment or good performer)

 

[tialimpeikong]

Actually, that is a common fallacy. The Canon 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses are both optically superior to the Nikon counterparts. Too bad they are EF-S. When it comes to EF mount, Nikon wide angle lenses are NEVER better than Canon counterparts EXCEPT for 14-24 f/2.8. Just look at their recent 16-35 f/4 VR and 24-70 f/2.8... acceptable but a far cry from their 14-24 f/2.8. I guess they just happen to stumble upon some magic formula for that one single wide angle lens. :bsmilie:

17-55 Nikon has better IQ and is better built

24-70 Nikon wins hands down for similar reasons

16-35 Distortion aside which can be corrected and isn't obvious unless you force it, it's much sharper than Canon's f2.8

So what you talking about?

 

[tialimpeikong]

Can we declare doodah the ultimate obstinate Canon fanboy with subjective tastes who is partial towards certain lenses only?

Canon's 50L is by no means mediocre. The 50 1.4 IS the mediocre one

 

[scubagolfer]

Do note you F-stop will reduce when u use teleconverters as well.

Duly noted, i think F2.8 will drop to 4 and 5.6 using TC1.4 and TC2 , from what I read in Canon website ... specs of Mk2

 

[tonylim]

I think we should stop this Canon lenses vs Nikon lenses debate. Pls focus the discussion on Canon lenses as this is the Canon discussion thread.