New 70-200L Test

[jamison55]

I had a bit of time to put my new 70-200L IS against my 135 f2L, 28-70 2.8L, and (for the heck of it) 28-105 f3.5-4.5. Who wins? You tell me!

http://www.bigredstudios.com/70135test/

[aparmley]

I can not tell the difference between the 70-200 and the 135. Is it just me or are both of these lenses showing softer images at F8 than at 5.6 & < ?

[cdifoto]

135's definitely sharper at 2.8 but that's to be expected. Color looks the same though, however the bokeh on the zoom is nicer, IMO. It's a prime AND stopped down.

Zoom's a wee bit softer than the 28-70 but not unacceptably so. Again, better bokeh on the tele zoom.

IS comparison? Well duh... :P


28-105 held its own in sharpness but not in color, IMO. Seems quite desaturated compared to the others.

[cdifoto]

I can not tell the difference between the 70-200 and the 135. Is it just me or are both of these lenses showing softer images at F8 than at 5.6 & < ?


You're right. Seems like diffraction setting in early??? Wierd.

[aparmley]

28-105 held its own in sharpness but not in color, IMO. Seems quite desaturated compared to the others.

except the F8 sample from that group - Ah Jay dubya mix up there??

[cdifoto]

except the F8 sample from that group - Ah Jay dubya mix up there??

You're right. It does look a little better. When I first posted, I had largely ignored the f/8 side because it's usually a no brainer. Dang near all lenses look good stopped down that far.

[Mr. Peabody]

Speaking as a hobbiest and not a PRO as most of you are.

135mm Range.....


I give a very slight edge to the 70-200mm.

Sharpness looks pretty equal IMO.

The biggest difference between the two would be the color. That is where the 70-200mm wins.



70mm Range..........

Pretty much a wash as far as sharpness is concerned.

Both the 28-70 and the 70-200 have better color.

[jamison55]

Sorry about the f8, I was using my cheapo tripod and the XT with grip (too lazy to break out the 9 pound Dynatran), and manually clicking the shutter. I reckon there's some camera shake involved as we were down to 1/25th by that point.

As for the 28-105, it's definitly outclassed here, but the washed out color is due to the fact that for some reason it was overexposing the scene by about 1/3 stop. I'll bet if I adjusted the curves down a little in PS it would come a bit closer. Still a bit sharper at 5.6 than it has a right to be (considering it was $1450 less than the 70-200).

It's not so noticible in the cross section here, but I think the 135L is a bit sharper than the 70-200...it sure is a heck of a lot lighter! They're both impressive in the image sharpness department. I agree that the bokeh is better on the zoom...that one surprised me, since the bokeh on the 135 is supposed to be among the best in the Canon lineup.

Given the sharpness of the 70-200, and the 2 stop advantage of the IS, it's likely that the 135L will be finding a new home...though I'm not in any rush for that to happen!

[cdifoto]

I'd probably sell the 135 too. With the nice bokeh and very very close sharpness on the zoom, plus the IS, that prime is almost redundant. It's only real life advantage is the wee bit of shutter speed you could squeeze out of it...but I'm willing to bet not too many situations would require it.

Sad as it sounds...but that prime will be dead weight in your bag 99% of the time - if you even bring it along.

[coldrain]

The 70-200mm f8 sample is moved, look at the ghost image above the yellow letters and above the box top (it is not even moved a little bit, but on the samples 5 pixels or so). The lens can not have caused that itself.

[jamison55]

The 70-200mm f8 sample is moved, look at the ghost image above the yellow letters and above the box top (it is not even moved a little bit, but on the samples 5 pixels or so). The lens can not have caused that itself.

Yep. like I said, it was pretty shaky on the tripod. The flash froze the movement for the most part, but the ambient was too high to freeze it completely (thus the ghosting - we are talking about 1/25 at 200mm equiv). Couldn't be bothered to retake with the sturdier tripod and self timer, so ignore the f8 samples if you wish...

[George Riehm]

Results seem to agree with the results on photozone. These guys have done a pretty thorough job on Canon lenses, and are getting into 3rd party lenses as well. I like their methods, and generally agree with their conclusions for the lenses I have used (which are all in the 3rd party lot).

Here is the EF 70-200 USM L:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4/index.htm

[24Peter]

FWIW - I tested but didn't keep the 135L. But I'm not really a good barometer though b/c I don't do enough low-light/natural light shooting where I'd need f2 on such a long lens. Also, on the copy I had the AF on my XT was very hit or miss for some reason (more so than other lenses.) So for $650 less I decided to stick with my 135 f2.8 SF for the time being. I've gotten great results with that lens outdoors.