ef 70-200 IS sharp?

[Rhys]

What do you think of this shot? Is it sharp and is the $2000 justified?

[DonSchap]

You know ... if you are going to have an image evaluated, it might be helpful to at least have the EXIF data associated with the shot. Other than focus, there isn't much to go on here.

f/2.8 aperture is rough on any lens. You are not going to get the accuity you would out of an f/8 shot. But, at least you would have f/2.8 available ... which you simply do not with an f/4 version. :o

Some reasons for f/2.8 are artistic blur, low-light capture and to just torment your friends and members of DCRP. What are yours?

[Rhys]

You know ... if you are going to have an image evaluated, it might be helpful to at least have the EXIF data associated with the shot. Other than focus, there isn't much to go on here.

f/2.8 aperture is rough on any lens. You are not going to get the accuity you would out of an f/8 shot. But, at least you would have f/2.8 available ... which you simply do not with an f/4 version. :o

Some reasons for f/2.8 are artistic blur, low-light capture and to just torment your friends and members of DCRP. What are yours?

The exif is there. Download the photo to see it. Reason to buy the 2.8? I haven't - yet. I like it but it's too heavy. I might get the 4 instead.

[timmciglobal]

The 2.8 has NOTHING in terms of sharpness over the F4. The 2.8 is ONLY better in that it's F2.8 and carries with it all the benefits of F2.8 vs F4. F4 on both are neck and neck sharpness wise in copies I've seen.

Tim

[DonSchap]

Once again, cover your needs. If you don't need an f/2.8 or won't appreciate what it can do ... don't bother. You also have to be careful with the minimum focus of the f/2.8 vs the f/4.

The f/2.8-version w/ IS (4.3 ft) will allow to get 6 inches closer that the f/2.8-version w/o IS (4.9 ft).

The f/4-version will allow you five-inches close than the f/2.8-version w/ IS (4.3 ft) with the f/4 as either IS (3.9 ft) or non-IS (3.94 ft).

Minimum focus has to be observed with tolerances this tight. Your distance between you and the subject in the image is not obvious, so that could account for some difficulties.

[Rhys]

Once again, cover your needs. If you don't need an f/2.8 or won't appreciate what it can do ... don't bother. You also have to be careful with the minimum focus of the f/2.8 vs the f/4.

The f/2.8-version w/ IS (4.3 ft) will allow to get 6 inches closer that the f/2.8-version w/o IS (4.9 ft).

The f/4-version will allow you five-inches close than the f/2.8-version w/ IS (4.3 ft) with the f/4 as either IS (3.9 ft) or non-IS (3.94 ft).

Minimum focus has to be observed with tolerances this tight. Your distance between you and the subject in the image is not obvious, so that could account for some difficulties.

subject distance - about 7 meters on my test shot.

[DonSchap]

Rhys, you need compare apples to apples. Therefore, obtain an EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM PRIME lens

19299

... open that puppy up to f/2.8 ... shoot the shot and compare them. Remember, the PRIME does NOT have IS ... so you may have to shut IS off on the 70-200mm to be fair ... or UP the shutter speed.

Either that ... or simply close down the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to aperture f/4 and shoot it side by side to the 70-200mm f/4-version.

(Will you just look at the flexibility this lens gives you, Rhys ... options out the rump. No matter how you want to compare it, you always have to lop something off ... just to make it fair!)

To judge the lens based on one single image is not a fair evaluation, especially at that aperture. Just my nickel's worth. For two cents, I won't even respond a third time. LOL :D

[RichNY]

.... and is the $2000 justified?

What costs $2000?

[cwphoto]

Try a different test subject in better light. That shot tells us nothing.

[DonSchap]

Yeah, what Christian said! :p