Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    34

    Need help on deciding a 70-200 (Canon mount)

    Hi everyone :

    Right now I'm in the middle of deciding to buy my dream lens : a 70-200! Fellow readers, please help me decide between these lenses. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

    Lenses in order of preference :

    1. EF 70-200 f/2.8

    Why I didn't get this lens yet : Not weather sealed. Not a big issue. Still my favourite lens

    2. EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS

    Why I didn't get this lens yet : Three copies of this lens that I tried have a bad case of purple fringing. Anyone have a good copy of this lens? Is the IS version any good at all? Reviews at Photozone indicated that this lens suffered from chronic QC issues

    3. EF 70-200 f/4 IS

    Why I didn't get this lens yet : Still deciding on the above. This lens competes heavily with f/2.8. According to Photozone, this lens is very sharp. That's why I'm split between 70-200 f/2.8's large aperture, and 70-200 f/4's sharpness. For comparison between these two lenses, please visit http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...9&LensComp=242

    4. Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

    Why I didn't get this lens yet : My friend's lens (Nikon mount) suffers from softness at f/2.8. User reviews at FredMiranda suggests that not all Sigma suffer from this issue. Maybe someone would like to share a crop of your Sigma taken at f/2.8? Thank you.

    I need to have this lens before June, since I'd be using it extensively during that month (and many years to come ) If Tamron manages to release their 70-200 f/2.8 before then, better. If not, then I guess I'm stuck between these big four. Thank you very much!

    And finally, I have a question : Would you prefer a slightly unsharp picture with a good bokkeh, or a sharp picture with a slightly bad bokkeh? (This, of course, refers to the f/2.8 and the f/4 IS above )

    Cheers!

    ILT

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,197
    Time for meds
    _______________
    Nikon D3, D300, F-100, 10.5 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 105 f/2.5, 200 f/4 Micro, 200 f/2 VR, 300 f/2.8 AF-S II, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, SU-800, SB-900, 4xSB-800, 1.4x and 1.7x TC
    (2) Profoto Acute 2400 packs w/4 heads, Chimera Boxes

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    It is my understanding that the 7-2 2.8 IS is a standard/workhorse lens fo professionals and countless other enthusiasts. Of all the lenses listed I think one would find the 7-2 2.8 IS to be regarded as the cream of the crop.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Quote Originally Posted by ILoveTifa View Post
    2. EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS

    Why I didn't get this lens yet : Three copies of this lens that I tried have a bad case of purple fringing. Anyone have a good copy of this lens? Is the IS version any good at all? Reviews at Photozone indicated that this lens suffered from chronic QC issues
    Yeah this lens totally blows:

    Ouch.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Crapville, Australia
    Posts
    5,148
    Great example CDI, chalk another one up for the 70-200/2.8 IS.
    Christian Wright; Dip Phot
    EOS 5D Mark III | EOS 600D | EOS-1V HS
    L: 14/2.8 II | 24/1.4 II | 35/1.4 | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 400/2.8 IS | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-105/4 IS | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS
    580EX II | EF 12 II | EF 25 II

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks CW. I post that image too much but it seems to fit quite a few bitch-slap-reality situations.


    Plus it was recent enough to be fresh in my memory...
    Ouch.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Red face Truth be told ...

    You usually need a good sky background to get a decent looking purple fringe. I've got some crappy overcast going here, today ... so it may not be good enough to attempt it ... but the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is mounted and ready. Maybe at lunch ... I'll shoot some bare branches. We still have plenty of them around here. Who knows, we may be lucky and get some CA, too!

    I don't recall, but do you get the "purple stuff" when you use a CP polarizer, or does it correct for it? Coldrain?

    What the hey, I'll shoot a few of both.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-09-2007 at 08:32 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Can you show any purple fringing example?
    Purple fringing is not a product of bad QC at all, it is just when too much light reaches the sensor and reflects back, some lenses reflect it back to the sensor again, creating a violet blue-ish or red-ish fringe around the bright spots into dark surroundings.

    When one lens of a lens type does that, all do that. You can stop the purple fringing by stopping down (this lessens the amount of light). It only will happen with open aperture and very bright light sources. So it should not be a problem in normal photography life (the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM is not exactly known for being a bad purple fringer).

    Example please...
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by ILoveTifa View Post

    And finally, I have a question : Would you prefer a slightly unsharp picture with a good bokkeh, or a sharp picture with a slightly bad bokkeh? (This, of course, refers to the f/2.8 and the f/4 IS above )
    Unsharp with good bokeh, no doubt for me.
    You can quick and easily sharpen in post-processing, whereas changing the background is surely more painful.

    Bye,
    Luca

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    34
    cdifoto, that's a great one! You convinced me with that shot
    I'll be searching for a good copy then!

    coldrain, thank you for your explanation. I'd love to give you the crops if I still have the files. But after taking my test shots, my friend (the owner of the shop)
    downloaded the everything to his PC to see the test images. He must have used cut, not copy, for when I got home, my CF was empty. But I remember that I shot a girl standing next to a big glass window inside the mall. The pf must come from that much light hitting my sensor. My stupid . And yes, the one with the bad pf was shot at f/2.8, shutter 1/40 (testing the IS), ISO 800 (pretty dark inside the mall). Maybe I should have tried stopping down a bit..

    DonSchap, thank you for the your trouble! Whew, I guess with these examples, it would be stupid for me not to get the 70-200 IS then. Thank you everyone!. I hope to one day post my own 70-200 IS images in this forum. Bye!

    Cheers,

    ILT

    Thread is closed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •