Canon 70-200mm f4L IS or 70-200mmf2.8L (non-IS)?

immiketoo · 10-07-2010, 07:40 AM

Jeff, did I miss it??? What did you order?

UdubBadger · 10-07-2010, 11:20 AM

i has f4 IS. worth it for the price. If you can pony up for the 2.8IS thats obviously

but in the same price range I'd rather have IS than 1-2 extra f stops

bosstones · 10-07-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Jeff, did I miss it??? What did you order?

I didn't disclose that yet.

Standby...

sb335is · 10-07-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

i has f4 IS. worth it for the price. If you can pony up for the 2.8IS thats obviously

but in the same price range I'd rather have IS than 1-2 extra f stops

depends what your shooting imo

dcstep · 10-09-2010, 09:42 PM

Hope you got the f/4L IS. It's a stunning lens. People that say the IS isn't handy must not shoot much at the long end. Put a 1.4x TC on it and it's good for wildlife, large birds and close-in small birds.

I took the following image on Monday morning in almost dark conditions. (The sensor makes it look brighter than it actually was). This is the f/4L IS with the 1.4x TC-II on my 5D MkII at ISO 6400:

Very handsome bull elk by dcstep, on Flickr

immiketoo · 10-09-2010, 10:43 PM

DC, I got the 2x converter for mine. Any experience with that? Your image is very sharp! I'm still playing with the combo to figure it out. My lens is a f4 with the 2x converter, but it still works really well.

dcstep · 10-09-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immiketoo

DC, I got the 2x converter for mine. Any experience with that? Your image is very sharp! I'm still playing with the combo to figure it out. My lens is a f4 with the 2x converter, but it still works really well.

Thanks Mike. I'm really, really please with the high-ISO performance of my 5D2.

I haven't tried the 2x. My bodies are the 7D and the 5D2 and they don't AF with as small an aperture as the full pro bodies. I'd like to borrow a 2x to see, but I'm doubtful that it'll be fast enough on an f/4. Of course, on a f/2.8 there'll be no problem and this would be a valid reason to go for the f/2.8 if you don't own a super-tele.

I'm curious to see if the IQ of the 2x TC-III has been improved.

Is the 2x working for you? Which 70-200mm and which body do you have?

immiketoo · 10-10-2010, 11:06 AM

I have the 5D2, the 70-200 IS2.8 II and the 2xII converter. I'm heading out right now to take a few quick shots...
EDIT-here they are, but the sharpness is WAY less when I exported them. I don't know why they look so soft. On my computer they are insanely crisp.

dcstep · 10-10-2010, 01:59 PM

Mike, take some with and without the 2x TC to compare sharpness. In some quarters the IQ of the 2x gets criticized. Tests that I've seen tend to support that. I'm hoping that the series-III corrects that issue.

Are you doing RAW conversion in Lightroom or Canon's Digital Photo Professional or something else? I use DxO's Optics Pro. The point I'm getting to is that make sure the geometric lens correction features is turned on. Your converted images should look even sharper than the jpegs out of the camera. DxO's Optics Pro corrects geometrics and is particularly good with wide-angle lenses, but even with the excellent 70-200mm lenses you can see enhancement.

One other problem might be, believe or not, over sharpening. Unless you've turned it off, the camera will sharpen. If you sharpen again, then you might actually smear and soften the image.

immiketoo · 10-10-2010, 02:40 PM

Thanks for the advice. I use iPhoto for basic editing, but the problem seems to be when i export for web publishing. in iPhoto, my pics are very sharp. I tried uploading the unedited camera image but its too big. Here's the same one exported from CS5. Look how much sharper it is! No more iPhoto for me, side by side comparison is dramatically different.

immiketoo · 10-10-2010, 02:52 PM

Wow, the more I look at the two versions of that image, I'm shocked at how much better the photoshop version is. I suppose I shouldn't be considering the price, but it's clear why CS5 is industry standard.

dcstep · 10-10-2010, 07:20 PM

Yes, pretty dramatic. PS isn't the only thing that works, but if you've got it, then use it.

immiketoo · 10-10-2010, 08:20 PM

Are the programs you mentioned and better than PS? I'm not opposed to getting another piece of software.

dcstep · 10-10-2010, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Are the programs you mentioned and better than PS? I'm not opposed to getting another piece of software.

No, I use DxO's Optics Pro because it's much easier to use and works in a batch mode. If you're doing everything in PS, then you'll probably be much quicker in something like Lightroom for 99% of you images which only need global changes, cropping, noise reductions and RAW conversion. It works in a project mode. PS is image by image, but is the best tool if you need to mask or make pixel-level changes.

I actually prefer DxO's noise reduction and shadow recovery abilities, but all these things are very close between the top softwares. Ease of use drove me away from PS except for the most problematic images.

bosstones · 10-11-2010, 10:29 PM

Pulled the plug on the f2.8 IS mkII.

Here's a test shot... Aquarium in the upstairs hall. All lights off except for the tank light (which has pretty good local lighting...). Put the camera in ISO800 so this shot is grainy but it's still pretty good IMO. This was hand held. I just cropped the full size image. No other editing was done.

Test shot

Chewy734 · 10-12-2010, 07:49 AM

Looks good Jeff! That lens is a beast... I'm waiting for some nice Canon rebate offers before I get something like that.

immiketoo · 10-12-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosstones

Pulled the plug on the f2.8 IS mkII.

Here's a test shot... Aquarium in the upstairs hall. All lights off except for the tank light (which has pretty good local lighting...). Put the camera in ISO800 so this shot is grainy but it's still pretty good IMO. This was hand held. I just cropped the full size image. No other editing was done.

Test shot

I KNEW IT!!! Told ya so

dcstep · 10-13-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosstones

Pulled the plug on the f2.8 IS mkII.

Here's a test shot... Aquarium in the upstairs hall. All lights off except for the tank light (which has pretty good local lighting...). Put the camera in ISO800 so this shot is grainy but it's still pretty good IMO. This was hand held. I just cropped the full size image. No other editing was done.

Add a little +EV next time and you'll control the noise better. "Expose Right" in the histogram and then pull down the brightness in RAW conversion.

Congrats.

bosstones · 10-26-2010, 01:33 AM

^ Thanks for the tip, dcstep!

10-07-2010, 11:20 AM	#24
UdubBadger Banned 633 Rep 24,685 Posts Drives: '04 330i ZHP Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chicago Burbs iTrader: (22) Garage List 2004 BMW 330i ZHP [9.50] 2011 135i [7.46] 2008 328xi [8.76]	i has f4 IS. worth it for the price. If you can pony up for the 2.8IS thats obviously but in the same price range I'd rather have IS than 1-2 extra f stops
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-09-2010, 09:42 PM	#27
dcstep Major General 1291 Rep 7,389 Posts Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Colorado iTrader: (0) Garage List 2009 M3 [8.40]	Hope you got the f/4L IS. It's a stunning lens. People that say the IS isn't handy must not shoot much at the long end. Put a 1.4x TC on it and it's good for wildlife, large birds and close-in small birds. I took the following image on Monday morning in almost dark conditions. (The sensor makes it look brighter than it actually was). This is the f/4L IS with the 1.4x TC-II on my 5D MkII at ISO 6400: Very handsome bull elk by dcstep, on Flickr __________________ Flickr Photos Ucm, Inc.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-10-2010, 01:59 PM	#31
dcstep Major General 1291 Rep 7,389 Posts Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Colorado iTrader: (0) Garage List 2009 M3 [8.40]	Mike, take some with and without the 2x TC to compare sharpness. In some quarters the IQ of the 2x gets criticized. Tests that I've seen tend to support that. I'm hoping that the series-III corrects that issue. Are you doing RAW conversion in Lightroom or Canon's Digital Photo Professional or something else? I use DxO's Optics Pro. The point I'm getting to is that make sure the geometric lens correction features is turned on. Your converted images should look even sharper than the jpegs out of the camera. DxO's Optics Pro corrects geometrics and is particularly good with wide-angle lenses, but even with the excellent 70-200mm lenses you can see enhancement. One other problem might be, believe or not, over sharpening. Unless you've turned it off, the camera will sharpen. If you sharpen again, then you might actually smear and soften the image. __________________ Flickr Photos Ucm, Inc.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-10-2010, 07:20 PM	#34
dcstep Major General 1291 Rep 7,389 Posts Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Colorado iTrader: (0) Garage List 2009 M3 [8.40]	Yes, pretty dramatic. PS isn't the only thing that works, but if you've got it, then use it. __________________ Flickr Photos Ucm, Inc.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-11-2010, 10:29 PM	#37
bosstones Lieutenant Colonel 1154 Rep 1,543 Posts Drives: o_0 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Suburbia iTrader: (0)	Pulled the plug on the f2.8 IS mkII. Here's a test shot... Aquarium in the upstairs hall. All lights off except for the tank light (which has pretty good local lighting...). Put the camera in ISO800 so this shot is grainy but it's still pretty good IMO. This was hand held. I just cropped the full size image. No other editing was done. Test shot __________________ - Jeff bosstones' flickr
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-12-2010, 07:49 AM	#38
Chewy734 Major General 468 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	Looks good Jeff! That lens is a beast... I'm waiting for some nice Canon rebate offers before I get something like that. __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-26-2010, 01:33 AM	#41
bosstones Lieutenant Colonel 1154 Rep 1,543 Posts Drives: o_0 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Suburbia iTrader: (0)	^ Thanks for the tip, dcstep! __________________ - Jeff bosstones' flickr
	Appreciate 0 Quote