# 70-200 II and forget about primes? (70-200 IS I is rubbish?)



## 00Q (Jan 17, 2012)

I love zoom f/2.8s. Personally because I love the convenience. Take a shot and get out of there! So I have the canon 24-70 but only the sigma 70-200 OS. The sigma is nice, very sharp and fast. 

Im aware of the IQ of primes. I tried the 50mm 1.4 and although it was fun to shoot and I love the look of the images at 1.4 ( even the images are soft at 1.4), it was a damn pain to shoot with. 

On thedigitalpicture website, I compared the images of the 70-200 II with other lenses and I was amazed at the sharpness of this lens across all aperatures and zoom ranges. Its comparable to primes. I heard about this lens sharpness but only saw it myself a few days ago. 

so question is, shall I sell my very new Sigma 70-200 OS for £750 and add another £750 to get the 70-200II and never have to worry about primes every again?

I also tested the 70-200 IS I, it seems the images are rubbish, softer than the non IS version. Anyone can confirm this?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

Yes, the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI is not as sharp as the non-IS, and the 70-200 II is the sharpest of all the 70-200 lenses. So, if f/2.8 is good enough for you, that sounds like the best solution. 

I use my 70-200 II a lot, but there are times when I want even shallower DoF, which is why I also have the 85/1.2L II and the 135/2L.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 17, 2012)

00Q said:


> I also tested the 70-200 IS I, it seems the images are rubbish, softer than the non IS version. Anyone can confirm this?


I wouldnt say rubbish but a friend of mine sold his IS 1 and bought a non IS for this reason
I have the IS 2 and its an awesome lens, i know lots of happy owners of the 70-200 non IS


----------



## JR (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree the 70-200 mkII is that good! I only wish Canon could come out with a 24-70 type zoom with the 70-200 mkII type IQ!!!


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 17, 2012)

As a new owner of the 70-200 2.8 IS II, it is incredibly sharp, and even in tight spaces, I find myself grabbing it more and more. I really don't notice the weight.

Are the primes better. Yes. Yes they are. But not by that much in terms of sharpness. They may have some other qualities individually they 70-200 does not offer, but they are probably not nearly as convenient


----------



## unfocused (Jan 17, 2012)

Not trying to go too far afield, but in terms of sharpness only, how do people feel about the 200 f2.8 prime and the 70-200mm f4 IS. Are they as sharp as, or sharper than, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Not trying to go too far afield, but in terms of sharpness only, how do people feel about the 200 f2.8 prime and the 70-200mm f4 IS. Are they as sharp as, or sharper than, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS?



The 70-200 II beats them both (although only slightly - detectable in tests, probably not relevant in real-world shooting).


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 17, 2012)

The 70-200 f2.8 II IS is an amazing lens and definitely my favourite one to shoot with. Its IQ is outstanding, you get usable pics at 2.8 already, from 5.6 onwards it's really prime sharp. I upgraded from the F4 IS version about a year ago and did never regret it. On FF I would use it even more often I think...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 17, 2012)

JR said:


> I agree the 70-200 mkII is that good! I only wish Canon could come out with a 24-70 type zoom with the 70-200 mkII type IQ!!!



I wish they would come out with a 24-105 f2.8 IS non extending zoom with IQ of the 70-200  but i've said that many times before


----------



## willrobb (Jan 17, 2012)

00Q said:


> Im aware of the IQ of primes. I tried the 50mm 1.4 and although it was fun to shoot and I love the look of the images at 1.4 ( even the images are soft at 1.4), it was a damn pain to shoot with.



On another post about primes versus zooms smirkypants said this:

"Zooms are practical family sedans and primes are impractical but fun convertibles."

I think this is true, zooms deliver good reliable results, especially at f2.8 it's hard to go wrong. When you have primes that go down to f1.2 - f1.4 it's harder to nail focus, but when you nail it....then you get superb results.


----------



## tron (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Not trying to go too far afield, but in terms of sharpness only, how do people feel about the 200 f2.8 prime and the 70-200mm f4 IS. Are they as sharp as, or sharper than, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS?
> ...



Can I ask you your opinion about IS performance?

I have this lens and the f/4 IS version and I think that the f/4 has much better IS. Of course may be the weight of the f/2.8 lens is the culprit but I am not completely sure that it can explain everything. OK, IS definitely works (I can see the difference when I turn it off) and in fact it is very quiet. 

But still I think that while the f/4 IS behaves like a true 4-stop version the f/2.8 behaves like it is not 4-stop but
1 or 1.5 stop only. Maybe it is just me but I am disappointed.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 17, 2012)

I have never tested the f2.8 IS and f4 IS side by side since I sold the f4 in order to get the f2.8 however I do not remember the IS on the f4 to be better. One reason could be that I am now taking those shots I would have previously taken at f4 at f2.8 instead.
Anyway, the IS on the f2.8 has worked great so far for me and my keeper rate remains as high as with the f4 IS which I can recommend to anyone who does not really need the f2.8.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jan 17, 2012)

I've never used one, but I have a hard time believing the 70-200 L IS is "rubbish"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



This shot was handheld at 95mm on a 5DII (free hand standing on a narrow bridge with no railing, not braced against anything), and was a 0.5 s exposure. Granted, there's a little motion blur at 100% viewing (but it looks decent at 1600 pixels - click the pic, then View All Sizes, then Original, check the writing on the wooden columns above the falls). That's *5.5 stops* below the 1/focal length guideline - the IS seems pretty good to me...




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 95mm, 1/2 s, f/5.6, ISO 100


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 17, 2012)

I've been able occasionally to do some 1/5 or 1/15 level exposures - not with every shot - with the recent Sigma f/2.8 OS zoom at its 300mm setting, without any notable shake even at 100%. The new 4-stop stabilized lenses really are worth it. I'm not sure the Canon will really offer much better OS performance.

However, good shooting technique is a must (so is the ability to take multiple shots if you are going to try to get the best possible shot for printing). Some people simply haven't been able to take shots these good.

So it's worth considering that the 70-200mm (or any other zoom) offers another useful facility - the ability to zoom out and back the camera up against something solid for a support.

If you can't do that, remember to tuck your elbows into your chest and stop breathing for the duration of the shot, as a start.

None of this is very good for taking photos of speakers or performers at events in dim lighting - anything with movement you want to freeze, basically; you'll need more light or to bump up you ISO sensitivity.


----------



## Grigbar (Jan 17, 2012)

00Q said:


> I love zoom f/2.8s. Personally because I love the convenience. Take a shot and get out of there! So I have the canon 24-70 but only the sigma 70-200 OS. The sigma is nice, very sharp and fast.
> 
> Im aware of the IQ of primes. I tried the 50mm 1.4 and although it was fun to shoot and I love the look of the images at 1.4 ( even the images are soft at 1.4), it was a damn pain to shoot with.
> 
> ...



Your doing it wrong. If its a pain for you to use a 50 prime then your zoom lens will never be anything more than a crutch for you lack of ability. If your not taking the time to get a good shot why are you going to spend the massive amounts of cash on pro gear? Point and shoots were made for people like you no offense. I like a reach out and touch me lens to because i some times need it and thats fine. But i shoot primes when i can and people love my photography.

And comparing images on a website is not a valid way to gauge the IQ of a lens. Were the images cropped and expanded? What quality were they rendered at? What were they processed in? What size did you view them at? Were you on a pro 10-bit monitor? Ect ect. . . If you dont know the answers to all of those questions and you dont have a pro monitor then you are not comparing anything, your just making a biased decision.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 17, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> If you can't do that, remember to tuck your elbows into your chest and stop breathing for the duration of the shot, as a start.



Sorry i have to disagree here, dont stop breathing because that introduces shake, its not natural for your lungs and the minor distress will cause involantary shake it can also make you snatch the shutter button more.

A better technique is almost exactly the same as firing a rifle, where, you take several regulated breathes to steady your breathing, particularly if you have been hiking or climing stairs mountains moving quickly to get into position. 
Then you breathe out and about half way through exhaling you gently squeeze the shutter while you maintain the same rate of exhaling the air from your lungs keep the shutter depressed through the shot and past the completion of the shot as you finish breathing out (this is to maintain the discipline and avoid any movement too early) if you have burst mode enabled it will obviously spray off a bunch of shots. 
Similarly look at standard rifle shooting stances, long lens shooting is the same as for standing, sitting and prone in this regard


----------



## MazV-L (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI is not as sharp as the non-IS, and the 70-200 II is the sharpest of all the 70-200 lenses. So, if f/2.8 is good enough for you, that sounds like the best solution.
> 
> I use my 70-200 II a lot, but there are times when I want even shallower DoF, which is why I also have the 85/1.2L II and the 135/2L.


I agree, I keep my 85f1.2Lii for the same reason even though the focal length is covered by the 70-200f2.8LISii. I also keep the 100f2.8Lis for it's macro abilities, something the 70-200f2.8L ISii lacks. 
Love, love, love the 70-200f2.8L ISii


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 17, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't do that, remember to tuck your elbows into your chest and stop breathing for the duration of the shot, as a start.
> ...



I agree and this is what I do - even works with handholding the 400 f/2.8


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 17, 2012)

I wonder whether it means Canon can make better primes, at least in the same focal range. E.g. the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM is nearly as good as the 135mm f/2L USM at common apertures, so couldn't Canon make an even better 135mm f/2L USM ?

[I intentionally ignore wider than 50mm primes, those I would compare to the Nikkor 14-24mm.]


----------



## tron (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Very nice picture indeed. And IS seems excellent! I will make more tests... Anyway I believe that it's the lens weight that caused this difference. I was used to the extra light f/4 version...

One more question related to this lens please?

Are you satisfied with the non-center focus points (5DII) for close subjects with this lens ?

It seems that the center point works OK but I have some questions about the other points...

The subject was very similar (and static: a sculpure) when I was using my 70-200 2.8 IS II successfully with the center point and not successfully with the outer one (Now that I have noticed this I will double check anyway)

On the other hand the outer focus points seem OK with my 135mm f/2.0L...
I must say however that on this later case I am not comparing exactly apples to apples here - comparing 2 lenses using outer focus points with a different subject.


----------



## bornshooter (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


steady shot for those shutter speeds hand held neuro would love to know your technique


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

tron said:


> One more question related to this lens please?
> 
> Are you satisfied with the non-center focus points (5DII) for close subjects with this lens ?



Honestly, I am not satisfied with the outer points on the 5DII with any lens. The center point is quite good, and with an f/2.8 or faster lens it is a high precision point as well. But I find the outer points to be very hit and miss, especially when compared to a camera like the 7D, where the outer points are nearly as good as the center point with a fast lens, and every bit as good with a slower lens. Frankly, I'm really looking forward to the AF system of the 1D X!



bornshooter said:


> steady shot for those shutter speeds hand held neuro would love to know your technique



Pretty much exactly as wickedwombat described. A tripod would have been better, but a) the bridge was only about 2 feet wide, so there really wasn't room to set up the legs, and b) the tripod was up in my room, and I was a bit too lazy to go and get it.


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 18, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't do that, remember to tuck your elbows into your chest and stop breathing for the duration of the shot, as a start.
> ...



totally agree with this - slow, regulated breathing is better than not breathing at all. If you do decide to go down that path, do remember to start breathing again though. 

I jest, - Personally, I'd go with the zoom first. Primes are great, especially for studio shoots, but I find the versatility of the primes helps more often than not. Yes, you could use your natural zoom and walk up and down, but you can't walk all over the place all over the time. 

If I was working in a limited space where I knew beforehand I'd only use one setting - a studio, or a very specific shoot, i'd go for the prime, but otherwise the zoom will be my first choice. Yes, primes will be sharper, but modern zooms have pretty good IQ as well - differences if you pixel peep, but otherwise, really negatable. 

further - if you're shooting outdoor and using fill flash, with the lens stopped down, the faster primes lose one of their advantages...


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

Just had an evening shooting various things - including mom and baby, I am not sure how much improvement a prime would have given. If IQ would not have nbeen seen to be better on an A3 printer there wounld be no point sacrificing the zoom'

This picture looks worse for being shrunk than it does printed


----------

