Canon 70-200mm test result on dpreview - soft wide open even oncropped sensor

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, May 16, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    This looks like what I'd expect from 80-200mm zoom from the 1980s.
    With ED, fluorite, etc and aspherics, can they for the price they
    charge produce a lens that actually works WELL at f2.8?? Apart from
    better colour error control, the image looks a lot like what I got
    from an old Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 from way back when.
    RichA, May 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    newsmb Guest

    newsmb, May 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Archibald Guest

    Don't worry, the lens is very good at Photozone.

    Archibald, May 16, 2008
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Surely most of the reviewers at will have been using
    DSLRs with APS-C size sensors?
    Bruce, May 16, 2008
  5. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    Do you know of ANY f2.8 tele-zoom that doesn't show some problem when
    shooting wide open? And even these problems didn't prevent it from
    getting a Highly Recomended rating.

    Dpreview compared it to the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G. The

    The Nikon lens clearly outperforms the Canon for sharpness
    on the smaller DX/APS-C format, however this comes at the
    cost of rather compromised performance on full frame, with
    significantly higher distortion, vignetting and chromatic
    aberration, plus extremely soft corners. This leads us to
    conclude that the two lenses were optimized differently,
    the Canon for full frame and the Nikon for DX, and illustrates
    how the different demands of the two formats appear difficult
    to reconcile in a single lens design.
    The AT-X Pro 70-200 was a nice lens. Had the opportunity to use it for
    a week on a Nikon body. Heavy sucker. IIRC, in the mid-90s it sold for
    around $1600.

    TRoss, May 17, 2008
  6. RichA

    OldBoy Guest

    OldBoy, May 17, 2008
  7. Gosh, with all the above, I'm still wondering why my old
    Nikkor (first version AF, not the huge MF version that
    preceded it, which I've never tried...) is very sharp to
    the corners at f2.8 on FF throughout its zoom range (at
    least beyond 15' or so near the long end). Zooms do vary
    in performance with distance more than non-zooms, and
    dpreview may be testing these out of their optimum focus
    range... BTW, the 180mm f2.8 AF is one of the sharpest
    FF lenses Nikon makes, and at infinity focus, the image
    of the old 80-200mm f2.8 is VERY hard to tell from it at
    f2.8 at 200mm FF. This makes me wonder, once again,
    about, "New and improved!". 8^)
    David Ruether, May 17, 2008
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Probably not. But Canon has access to their own fluorite company, and
    it is possible to make a lens such as this at f2.8 that would be good
    wide open.

    Dpreview gives a Canon product a highly recomended rating. Who'd have
    though? :)
    That conclusion is debatable, but it is possible. Their last comment
    though should have had the qualifier (maybe) "at a set price of $1600
    or so."
    Stopped down, it was fine. Wide open it's best attribute was that the
    fast speed made focusing easier in lower light.
    RichA, May 17, 2008
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Note the comment by the one user:

    The only reason for the 9 rating is I've had several soft copies of
    this lens. My Sigma 70-200/2.8 was sharp out of the box, it was better
    than every other copy of this lensI had gotten until this one. Finally
    I'm a happy camper.
    RichA, May 17, 2008
  10. RichA

    Ray Paseur Guest

    Haven't read that review, but I shoot sports with this lens and I have some
    thousands of images to consider in making this response to the OP. I think
    it is a little soft in some images and razor sharp in others. That
    suggests to me that the issue could be focus (perhaps focus speed) rather
    than anything inherent in the optics. I use it on Canon 5D and 20D mostly.

    Now having said that, I must also say that I have never lost a sale because
    of a soft image, so my overly critical eye cannot be a factor in evaluating
    the image quality. The paying customers have the final say. They usually
    see a gallery and choose a print or two. ~Ray
    Ray Paseur, May 18, 2008
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    That's good. I was at a gallery yesterday and out of the 22 odd
    images I saw, perhaps 3 were technically decent, so what sells as art
    bears little resemblance to what passes for technically excellent.
    I'd kind of prefer a lens to deliver a sharp image then allow the
    shooter to decide if they want it blurred out in post-processing,
    though some people no doubt prefer the lens do the blurring. The
    focus issue is a question. We've all heard about the large Canon's
    focusing issues, but I don't recall hearing it about the 20D or 5D. So
    the focus issue (if there is one and if it is the cause of some of the
    blurring you've seen) is that there is a limit to what any lens is
    capable of and you can go outside the control of any AF system.
    My main point in this was that the 70-200mm represents the pinnacle of
    that lens range from both mfgs, but neither is really capable of
    providing absolutely outstanding results because of compromises in the
    optical designs. I assume they could do this for $1600. I'm probably
    wrong as I've seen near perfect fixed-focal length lenses that were
    slower, and cost three times the price of those 70-200mm zooms.
    RichA, May 18, 2008
  12. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Selective reading again, troll? Or selective stupidity?
    Ray Fischer, May 31, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.