# The great 70-200mm f/2.8 shootout, Canon vs Nikon, Panasonic and Sony



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 17, 2020)

> DPReview has done a comparison of four different 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to figure out who makes the best of the bunch.
> DPreview compares autofocus, sharpness, video performance, and more to come up with a winner.
> The contenders:
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Surab (Nov 17, 2020)

The message was really not that Canon is the definite winner without a doubt, but rather: Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are essentially equally great, with the Canon having a huge advantage in size and weight, but Nikon and Panasonic winning on TC support. Even the Sony was great and just lacked a bit in features, thus it is due for an update to bring those up to speed.

These are truly amazing times and neither of these lenses is in my price bracket anyway. I am sure people will love them to bits no matter which system(s) they use.


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 17, 2020)

DPR misses the most important things, forest for the trees, gear reviewers who aren't true photographers (this is why for example they hyper focus on dynamic range more than anything else in a camera body, and why their sample galleries look like a 5-year-old took them). In this case, they don't test what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture. Meaning, how well does it render people, how is the bokeh, how is the contrast? These are arguably the most important qualities for this lens (along with sharpness which they do test) which can't be measured on a test chart, it requires taking many shots and comparisons to get a feeling of overall rendering. For quality reviews from people who actually do photography, I find Bryan Carnathan at tdp and Dustin Abbott much more insightful.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 17, 2020)

Nikon won the sharpness comparison. Not surprising given the MTFs for this lens are extremely good.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 17, 2020)

The Nikon wins for me just on sharpness and versatility. The 1.4x is a no brainer and the 2x TC is viable. 
The Canon wins on being a wee fatty I can fit in a smaller bag, but gives up TC support which make is less versatile for wildlife shooting. 
The others are irrelevant.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 17, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The others are irrelevant.



Lol. Actually, I have the Sony and hope they release an MK2.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 17, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> Like most of their reviews, DPR misses the most important things, forest for the trees, gear reviewers who aren't true photographers (this is why for example they hyper focus on dynamic range more than anything else in a camera body). In this case, they don't test what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture. Meaning, how well does it render people, how is the bokeh, how is the contrast? These are arguably the most important qualities for this lens (along with sharpness which they do test) which can't be measured on a test chart, it requires taking many shots and comparisons to get a feeling of overall rendering. For quality reviews from people who actually do photography, I find Bryan Carnathan at tdp and Dustin Abbott much more insightful.


"what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture."
The 70-200mm can be used - and I do use it - for portraiture on occassion but there are more dedicated portrait lenses eg. 50/85mm 1.2 for instance or even the 100mmL. Some people love the 135mm/2 instead.
I use my 70-200mm range more for action where a zoom is needed and moving feet isn't as simple as can be for slow-moving portraiture. I also use it for landscape stopped down. It is a very versatile focal range so to say that it has a primary usage is a personal decision. YMMV


----------



## degos (Nov 18, 2020)

That's the problem with much of the photo industry today; so much choice yet in reality so little choice. 

Say I identify that I need a 35-150 f2.8. Where are they? Or perhaps a 50-135 f2. Nope.

But here are half a dozen 70-200 f2.8, now just buy one like a good little consumer.


----------



## Joules (Nov 18, 2020)

degos said:


> That's the problem with much of the photo industry today; so much choice yet in reality so little choice.
> 
> Say I identify that I need a 35-150 f2.8. Where are they? Or perhaps a 50-135 f2. Nope.


Well, that's a problem with any market. If you want a niche product (especially if you want it NOW, rather than once the rest of the ecosystem has matured) that only you and a handful of others want, better get ready to pay some major money to have it purpose built for you.

A f/2.0 zoom may still become a reality. But the RF system is still super new, and obviously the most common lens offerings get more attention before more out-there designs.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 18, 2020)

Hopefully, for Sony users, Sony now replaced the flimsy aluminum plate that allowed their original 70-200 F.2.8 to easily bend in the middle: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...wn-of-the-sony-fe-70-200-f2-8-gm-oss-part-ii/


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 18, 2020)

degos said:


> That's the problem with much of the photo industry today; so much choice yet in reality so little choice.
> 
> Say I identify that I need a 35-150 f2.8. Where are they? Or perhaps a 50-135 f2. Nope.
> 
> But here are half a dozen 70-200 f2.8, now just buy one like a good little consumer.


I really miss a compact, fully weather sealed 12-1200mm f/2.8 lens  

In fact, to be serious, I am pretty sure that lens manufacturers do some market research before they invest. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a classic photojournalist's lens. This focal length range allows lens designers to make pretty sharp lenses despite the compromises a zoom always demands for. So when Sony decided to get a share of this pro/prosumer market, they first copied Canon's white disign (made it even more shinier) and filled it then with glass etc. produced in Thailand. With the Mk I version, they didn't realize that a cheap aluminum plate between the two main parts of the lens is a bit flimsy for a rugged pro lens. So, lensrentals struggled with bend Sony lenses returned from their customers, as one could read in Roger Cicala's blog three years ago.


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 18, 2020)

degos said:


> That's the problem with much of the photo industry today; so much choice yet in reality so little choice.
> 
> Say I identify that I need a 35-150 f2.8. Where are they? Or perhaps a 50-135 f2. Nope.
> 
> But here are half a dozen 70-200 f2.8, now just buy one like a good little consumer.


Here's your 35-150mm (of course it is not a constant f2.8 but rather f2.8 - 4.0








Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD Lens for Canon EF


Buy Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD Lens for Canon EF featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Maximum Aperture Range: f/2.8-4, Three Low Dispersion Elements, Three Hybrid Aspherical Elements, BBAR and Fluorine Coatings, Optimized Silent Drive AF Motor, VC Image Stabilization, Rounded...




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## Stanly (Nov 18, 2020)

I wonder if Dustin Abbott got a faulty unit because his RF 70-200mm f/2.8 looks much worse than 2.5 times cheaper Tamron 70-180m f/2.8


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

Did anyone else notice that he showed the Canon lens without a lens hood, while he showed the other 3 with lens hood on? That really exaggerated the difference in length. I use the lens hood on mine as much as possible, and it makes it feel a lot longer just by being on.

There was no real comparison when shooting portraits of say a lady at MFD so we could look at the background bokeh. That would have been one of the most useful comparisons to do.

A somewhat minor thing he could have mentioned is whether any have an Arca-Swiss set of grooves on their feet so that they can mount to a A-Q quick connected tripod? The Canon doesn't have one (DOH!). My 3 year old Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens has the A-S foot and it is so convenient to use! Come on - Canon, start putting A-S grooves on your big feet!

It would have been great (but risky) if he put each out in a controlled shower to simulate rain for 5 minutes, then dry them off and see if any moisture got into any part of them, including after taking the lens off the mount. I know for a fact that the Canon will survive this perfectly (well, ahem, ... I made the mistake of doing this test accidentally (doh!) and there was no moisture anywhere!). I'd love to see what happened to the Sony (lens as well as body) as I don't trust their weather sealing at all.

One final comment - I absolutely love my RF 70-200 f2.8L ! I'm glad they're coming out with a F4L version for those who are more into landscape use instead of portraiture, and I expect it will be really great as well.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 19, 2020)

Accutance said:


> Nikon won the sharpness comparison. Not surprising given the MTFs for this lens are extremely good.


Canon has prioritised size over quality, all of Nikon's holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms are the clear winners in IQ. The 14-24 is a much better lens than the 15-35 IMO. I intensely dislike the new 70-200's from Canon more so due to abandoning TC support. I regularly use my EF 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC. I am seriously doubting getting an R5 even putting aside the total unavailability and price gouging where I live. I'm now waiting to see how the Nikon Z8/Z9 and Sony A9III stack up. I got all my EF glass which works great on the Sony and I have little interest at all in the RF glass so far released also since most are at least 25% dearer than their EF equivalents.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 19, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> "what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture."
> The 70-200mm can be used - and I do use it - for portraiture on occassion but there are more dedicated portrait lenses eg. 50/85mm 1.2 for instance or even the 100mmL. Some people love the 135mm/2 instead.
> I use my 70-200mm range more for action where a zoom is needed and moving feet isn't as simple as can be for slow-moving portraiture. I also use it for landscape stopped down. It is a very versatile focal range so to say that it has a primary usage is a personal decision. YMMV


It's bizarre isn't it. It's a lens formula created by Canon back in the film days. It's a lens primarily designed for photojournalists to shoot walkabouts press work. Which is why the lens' bokeh has always been a bit too agitated for portrait work. Compare the results from a 135mm f2 (or even an 85mm f1.2) at the same working distance and apertures and the 135L wins by a mile in terms of how a portrait image looks.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 19, 2020)

Stanly said:


> I wonder if Dustin Abbott got a faulty unit because his RF 70-200mm f/2.8 looks much worse than 2.5 times cheaper Tamron 70-180m f/2.8


Interesting that his Tamron corner shot was softer at f4 compared to f2.8. It kind of questions the whole validity of his test. 
It could be a mis focus (which raises a lot of other potential questions), it could be aperture realted focus shift or it could just be some lens shake. 
This test also fails to test either lens at either end of their focus range. A dollar bill on a wall for a 70-200 will tax a lens' relatively close focus sharpness. A zoom lens has a lot of design compromises, we can't expect a lens to operate as well at every focal length and every focus distance. 
For example, the Canon ef 70-200 f2.8IIILIS is slightly sharper at the longer end of it's focus range...ie it's a bit sharper at infinity as it is at 2m @200mm. HOWEVER, the wonderful ef 70-200 f4 variant often is slated a being a tad softer than the f2.8. BUT this lens is a tad sharper at it's close focus distance than it is at infinity. 
It's quite possible that the Tamron fares better shooting dollar bills on a wall at a few meters away than at infinity. It doesn't mean it's a sharper lens across all focus ranges and focal lengths....this is why I detest home bakes lens tests...there are so many more variables.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2020)

I like Dustin's reviews, I really do. But It so often does seem that Tameron is the best of whatever else it's up against, whether it be Sigma or Canon or whatever. Depressing!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 19, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Canon has prioritised size over quality, all of Nikon's holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms are the clear winners in IQ. The 14-24 is a much better lens than the 15-35 IMO. I intensely dislike the new 70-200's from Canon more so due to abandoning TC support. I regularly use my EF 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC. I am seriously doubting getting an R5 even putting aside the total unavailability and price gouging where I live. I'm now waiting to see how the Nikon Z8/Z9 and Sony A9III stack up. I got all my EF glass which works great on the Sony and I have little interest at all in the RF glass so far released also since most are at least 25% dearer than their EF equivalents.


The best part of the R mount system is that you can use your existing EF lenses (including EF70-200 + 1.4TC) natively and have even better stabilisation than you had previously. Is your Sony body that much better than the R5? Moving from the 5Div to the R5 has been revolutionary for me.
As for price...
The EF lenses have already been discounted from their initial pricing so the comparison is a bit apples-to-oranges.
The RF lenses are expensive but I have already seen 15% and 20% off sales for them (I bought both the RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm at 15% off). Even the R5 currently offered with AUD250 cash back rebate from Canon at the moment.
I previously used the EF1.4x and 2x TCs with my EF70-200mm for the occasional times I needed extra reach. The R5's 45mp sensor gives you the cropping for ~1.4x compared to the 5Div so no 1.4x TC was really needed for me anyway. I'm guessing that you have a A9ii so the extra reach from sensor mp is even more obvious.
That said, I did splurge on the RF100-500mm and use it much more now than I thought I would eg. for the moon/Jupiter/Saturn conjunction last night.
Perhaps by the time the A9iii is available, the R5 will be more readily available and perhaps the lenses and bodies will be a bit cheaper where you live.
Changing to Nikon will cost you a lot more in lens system changeover than getting a R5 and keeping your EF glass.
YMMV


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 20, 2020)

I h


woodman411 said:


> DPR misses the most important things, forest for the trees, gear reviewers who aren't true photographers (this is why for example they hyper focus on dynamic range more than anything else in a camera body, and why their sample galleries look like a 5-year-old took them). In this case, they don't test what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture. Meaning, how well does it render people, how is the bokeh, how is the contrast? These are arguably the most important qualities for this lens (along with sharpness which they do test) which can't be measured on a test chart, it requires taking many shots and comparisons to get a feeling of overall rendering. For quality reviews from people who actually do photography, I find Bryan Carnathan at tdp and Dustin Abbott much more insightful.


I hve never once shot a portrait on my 70-200 2.8. Actually, that is a lie. I do pet portraits a lot but I do use it for wildlife and landscapes all the time. But your point is till valid. Sharpness is but one factor to consider and it is not always the most important


----------



## melgross (Nov 20, 2020)

degos said:


> That's the problem with much of the photo industry today; so much choice yet in reality so little choice.
> 
> Say I identify that I need a 35-150 f2.8. Where are they? Or perhaps a 50-135 f2. Nope.
> 
> But here are half a dozen 70-200 f2.8, now just buy one like a good little consumer.


You actually think that manufacturers are going to make every odd size a few people want? It’s very expensive to design and manufacture lenses. They have to know, or at least expect, that enough people will buy it. I’d you “find” that you need a lens that pretty much nobody else needs, it’s never going to be made. What if someone else “needs“ a 30-155 f 2.5, or a 40-170 f2? They should make those also?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 20, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> DPR misses the most important things, forest for the trees, gear reviewers who aren't true photographers (this is why for example they hyper focus on dynamic range more than anything else in a camera body, and why their sample galleries look like a 5-year-old took them). In this case, they don't test what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture. Meaning, how well does it render people, how is the bokeh, how is the contrast? These are arguably the most important qualities for this lens (along with sharpness which they do test) which can't be measured on a test chart, it requires taking many shots and comparisons to get a feeling of overall rendering. For quality reviews from people who actually do photography, I find Bryan Carnathan at tdp and Dustin Abbott much more insightful.


I agree with others here that I wouldn't regard the EF 70-200 f/2.8 primary as a portrait lens, but one certainly can shoot quite nice portraits with it. The background shouldn't be too busy, then you get a not too bad bokeh either. So, it is a quite versatile lens, and what I in particular like about my Mk II version is its quite reliable AF performance with a 5D3/4 combo.

But I totally agree with your comment about DPR, Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott, Woodman. Gear-heads and real photographers are not necessarily living in the same ecosystem - a skilled photographer could even get eye-catching images with a 100 years old Kodak Brownie


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 20, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> I agree with others here that I wouldn't regard the EF 70-200 f/2.8 primary as a portrait lens, but one certainly can shoot quite nice portraits with it. The background shouldn't be too busy, then you get a not too bad bokeh either. So, it is a quite versatile lens, and what I in particular like about my Mk II version is its quite reliable AF performance with a 5D3/4 combo.
> 
> But I totally agree with your comment about DPR, Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott, Woodman. Gear-heads and real photographers are not necessarily living in the same ecosystem - a skilled photographer could even get eye-catching images with a 100 years old Kodak Brownie



My point about dpr is that they're just scratching the surface, and coming to conclusions based on these surface tests (eg. autofocus rated by racking speed... really? What about bokeh, iq/rendering, build quality, etc). Because of this, this Canon "victory" means nothing for me, as does most dpr ratings. If dpr is all we've got, fine, but thankfully there are other resources available that focus on the more important things of a lens or camera body.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 20, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> My point about dpr is that they're just scratching the surface, and coming to conclusions based on these surface tests (eg. autofocus rated by racking speed... really? What about bokeh, iq/rendering, build quality, etc). Because of this, this Canon "victory" means nothing for me, as does most dpr ratings. If dpr is all we've got, fine, but thankfully there are other resources available that focus on the more important things of a lens or camera body.


They did consider several factors though. Racking speed, bokeh, size/weight, video performance, sharpness etc. But the reality is that ANY professional 70-200 you buy is for all intents and ourposes going to perform equally well in all situations. No viewer on the planet is going to look at an image and deduce which lens it was taken on. TBH. I highly doubt 99.9% of viewers would care as long as the image is nice.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 23, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> DPR misses the most important things, forest for the trees, gear reviewers who aren't true photographers (this is why for example they hyper focus on dynamic range more than anything else in a camera body, and why their sample galleries look like a 5-year-old took them). In this case, they don't test what a 70-200 f/2.8 is primarily for: portraiture. Meaning, how well does it render people, how is the bokeh, how is the contrast? These are arguably the most important qualities for this lens (along with sharpness which they do test) which can't be measured on a test chart, it requires taking many shots and comparisons to get a feeling of overall rendering. For quality reviews from people who actually do photography, I find Bryan Carnathan at tdp and Dustin Abbott much more insightful.



In fact he did talk about bokeh, bokeh balls (onion rings and shape) and LoCA at 2:54 and included photos of his daughter:








DPReview TV: Battle of the 70-200mm F2.8 zooms (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic)


Who makes the best 70-200mm F2.8 zoom lens? We tested the latest models from Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic to find out.




www.dpreview.com





Of course he also talked about sharpness, which does include subjective perceptions about contrast (the two are not mutually exclusive). I agree the sample photos are not particularly inspiring. I disagree that the 70-200 is primarily used for portraiture.

Personally speaking, so-called "rendering" is highly subjective and connoisseurs often describe it in non-technical terms (colourfully apt descriptions). Rendering, other than a faithful facsimile of the subject usually means the lens is under corrected in some manner (e.g., residual spherical aberration -- characteristic of fast aperture lenses). Anyone who is willing to spend over $2000 on a lens will undoubtedly demand a highly corrected, "sterile" lens. One can instantly "add" (i.e., subtract accutance) haze/veiling flare in post.


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 24, 2020)

Accutance said:


> In fact he did talk about bokeh, bokeh balls (onion rings and shape) and LoCA at 2:54 and included photos of his daughter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bokeh balls go only so far, just as racking speed goes only so far (there is much more to bokeh and autofocus than that). They are just scratching the surface. Rendering may be subjective, but the quality of rendering, and the differences in this quality, is real. It's why Zeiss Otus lenses and various L lenses have a special feel to them, regardless of what the test charts say.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 24, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> Bokeh balls go only so far, just as racking speed goes only so far (there is much more to bokeh and autofocus than that). They are just scratching the surface. Rendering may be subjective, but the quality of rendering, and the differences in this quality, is real. It's why Zeiss Otus lenses and various L lenses have a special feel to them, regardless of what the test charts say.



Real and yet unarticulated or unquantified by either Dpreview or you. Do tell us about those differences in palpable, if not technical, terms, particularly their impact on portrait photography, it's consumers and your wallet.


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 24, 2020)

Accutance said:


> Real and yet unarticulated or unquantified by either Dpreview or you. Do tell us about those differences in palpable, if not technical, terms, particularly their impact on portrait photography, it's consumers and your wallet.



Like I said, it is not measurable, to be clear, I mean not measurable on the consumer side (I'm sure lens engineers know exactly what gives rendering characteristics that make both a $200 50 prime versus a $2000 50 prime), but since we are not lens engineers, all we can do is to take many shots with one lens, and then another, and compare, ideally under similar circumstances. It is one of the first things I did when I got into photography, I asked what's the difference between a cheap pancake prime versus a massive expensive prime versus a zoom that covers the same range (besides the obvious differences of speed). I got all of them and took thousands of shots and compared. I got into 3rd party lenses and compared them to Canon and even got into a few Zeiss lenses. Yes there are differences in sharpness, but over time, you get to see many other characteristics of a lens. They are there, they are real, and they are not measured, at least by review sites and consumers.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 25, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> Like I said, it is not measurable, to be clear, I mean not measurable on the consumer side (I'm sure lens engineers know exactly what gives rendering characteristics that make both a $200 50 prime versus a $2000 50 prime), but since we are not lens engineers, all we can do is to take many shots with one lens, and then another, and compare, ideally under similar circumstances. It is one of the first things I did when I got into photography, I asked what's the difference between a cheap pancake prime versus a massive expensive prime versus a zoom that covers the same range (besides the obvious differences of speed). I got all of them and took thousands of shots and compared. I got into 3rd party lenses and compared them to Canon and even got into a few Zeiss lenses. Yes there are differences in sharpness, but over time, you get to see many other characteristics of a lens. They are there, they are real, and they are not measured, at least by review sites and consumers.



What you're referring to is "mystique", which is no description at all. It is neither qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative. Such "reviews" are not based on any established evaluation criteria and therefore negate objectivity (although they can be excused if they provide decent SOOC comparison photos). How can anyone rationally part with $2000 or even $200 or be dissuaded from doing so on that basis?

Practically speaking, no one, including yourself or Dpreview, is going to buy all the aforementioned 70-200s, take thousands of photos with each and then describe their merits for one genre of photography (i.e., portraiture). In the absence of a universally accepted test methodology, brick wall/ test targets/ MTF curves and even pictures of a household cat may have to do.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 25, 2020)

Accutance said:


> What you're referring to is "mystique", which is no description at all. It is neither qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative. Such "reviews" are not based on any established evaluation criteria and therefore negate objectivity (although they can be excused if they provide decent SOOC comparison photos). How can anyone rationally part with $2000 or even $200 or be dissuaded from doing so on that basis?
> 
> Practically speaking, no one, including yourself or Dpreview, is going to buy all the aforementioned 70-200s, take thousands of photos with each and then describe their merits for one genre of photography (i.e., portraiture). In the absence of a universally accepted test methodology, brick wall/ test targets/ MTF curves and even pictures of a household cat may have to do.


OK - "even pictures of a household cat may have to do" ?

I'll send you all some I took a few weeks ago with my R5, RF 70-200 f2.8L, with a B+W XS-Pro Clear Nano filter. Handheld, animal eye AF, electronic 1st shutter & mechanical 2nd shutter, raw on all. DXO Photolab4 (& deep prime) to my taste in post. Originals are slightly cropped for best look, then resized to 2.5k pixels longest side to download here, and are followed by a 1:1 crop around the face & eyes to show sharpness.

*EDIT* - I've been reading a lot more about the benefit/downsides of using any clear protective filter in general, including the highest quality ones. I'm now going to take off the filters for most usage, and only put them on when in dusty/sandy environments.

iso 400, f8, 1/750", 70mm






iso 400, f8, f/1000", 70mm






iso 400, f8, 1/500", 70mm






iso 100, f2.8, 1/1000", 135mm






iso 400, f8, 1/1000", 200mm






OK - I might not have photos from other 70-200 bodies & lenses to compare to, but I just thought I'd have some fun sending these off to all of you to enjoy.


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 25, 2020)

Accutance said:


> What you're referring to is "mystique", which is no description at all. It is neither qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative. Such "reviews" are not based on any established evaluation criteria and therefore negate objectivity (although they can be excused if they provide decent SOOC comparison photos). How can anyone rationally part with $2000 or even $200 or be dissuaded from doing so on that basis?
> 
> Practically speaking, no one, including yourself or Dpreview, is going to buy all the aforementioned 70-200s, take thousands of photos with each and then describe their merits for one genre of photography (i.e., portraiture). In the absence of a universally accepted test methodology, brick wall/ test targets/ MTF curves and even pictures of a household cat may have to do.



And this is where experience counts, where photographers are separated from gear reviewers, who already have a feel for various lenses because they already have taken thousands of pictures, they already have a feel of where a lens fits in the "pecking order". Sounds like you're hell bent on sticking with gear reviewers, your choice of course. I'll go with real photographers and their insights (Bryan Carnathan, Dustin Abbott, Alik Griffin, and a host of Canon ambassadors like Peter Mckinnon, Vanessa Joy, Irene Rudnyk, etc. But they're biased right?) Go with what works for you.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 25, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> And this is where experience counts, where photographers are separated from gear reviewers, who already have a feel for various lenses because they already have taken thousands of pictures, they already have a feel of where a lens fits in the "pecking order". Sounds like you're hell bent on sticking with gear reviewers, your choice of course. I'll go with real photographers and their insights (Bryan Carnathan, Dustin Abbott, Alik Griffin, and a host of Canon ambassadors like Peter Mckinnon, Vanessa Joy, Irene Rudnyk, etc. But they're biased right?) Go with what works for you.



Funny, a couple of those "photographers" I would be more inclined to call "gear reviewers". Either way, they only provide one data point for any lens that I might be interested in.

Vanessa Joy? Never heard of her until now. Interesting that she compares an EF 50/1.2 L and a 50/1.8 (I've owned both).






What point do you think she's making?

In any case, you seem "hell bent" on avoiding addressing my points. If it's all about the experience, as you say, then you will know that most lenses will get the job done, aesthetically, artistically, professionally or recreationally -- of course in the hands of a reasonably competent photographer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2020)

Accutance said:


> Funny, a couple of those "photographers" I would be more inclined to call "gear reviewers". Either way, they only provide one data point for any lens that I might be interested in.
> 
> Vanessa Joy? Never heard of her until now. Interesting that she compares an EF 50/1.2 L and a 50/1.8 (I've owned both).
> 
> ...


She is a photographer, an actual working pro who shot weddings with 1DX II‘s long before she got on Canon’s radar. She has an impressive website of current wedding images, she is working the social media angle but then that is how many people supplement their income nowadays, but first and foremost she is a professional photographer who knows her business and her gear. Her husband is a pretty decent videographer too.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> who knows her business and her gear.



You don't say?


----------



## jd7 (Nov 25, 2020)

Accutance said:


> What you're referring to is "mystique", which is no description at all. It is neither qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative. Such "reviews" are not based on any established evaluation criteria and therefore negate objectivity (although they can be excused if they provide decent SOOC comparison photos). How can anyone rationally part with $2000 or even $200 or be dissuaded from doing so on that basis?
> 
> Practically speaking, no one, including yourself or Dpreview, is going to buy all the aforementioned 70-200s, take thousands of photos with each and then describe their merits for one genre of photography (i.e., portraiture). In the absence of a universally accepted test methodology, brick wall/ test targets/ MTF curves and even pictures of a household cat may have to do.











‘Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted’ (attributed to Albert Einstein)







www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





I would agree that it is worth paying attention to measurable characterists of lenses. Quantifying differences can certainly give you useful information, and for example can help avoid wasting money on gear which really isn't better than cheaper gear, or avoid overlooking gear which would actually be good. However, at least if the purpose of photography is to make art (perhaps may be different if, for example, you do forensic photography and your aim is to record a scene as faithfully as possible?), surely what ultimately matters is how viewers react to an image? And if in the end you believe your intended audience will prefer images from one lens than another, why ignore that just because you cannot point to some quantiifable difference in a particular lens characteristc? Obviously, getting carried away with particular gear giving some particular "look" risks buying into hype and wasting money on gear which isn't making any real difference, etc, but in my view that is not a reason to simply say that unquantifiable (or at least unquantified) differences can never be real.


----------



## Accutance (Nov 25, 2020)

jd7 said:


> ‘Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted’ (attributed to Albert Einstein)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're confounding the optical performance of a lens, which is largely, if not wholly measurable, with the subjective perceptions of its user and his audience. What do the latter really have to do with a "review", a systematic and objective evaluation against defined criteria? If what really matters in a review is how to impress an audience, then we should focus more on the brand mystique, price and size of our equipment. These qualities never fail to impress, even if one takes crap photos. Yes, let's make reviews about how to "manage" optics rather than to scientifically evaluate them.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 25, 2020)

Accutance said:


> You're confounding the optical performance of a lens, which is largely, if not wholly measurable, with the subjective perceptions of its user and his audience. What do the latter really have to do with a "review", a systematic and objective evaluation against defined criteria? If what really matters in a review is how to impress an audience, then we should focus more on the brand mystique, price and size of our equipment. These qualities never fail to impress, even if one takes crap photos. Yes, let's make reviews about how to "manage" optics rather than to scientifically evaluate them.


No, I am not confounding optical performance and viewer perception at all.

In any event, if you are a professional and the impression your gear makes on your clients - due to its size, brand, price, etc - makes a difference, I think you'd be mad to simply dismiss that as entirely irrelevant, so yes, I think you can make an argument that those things are worth mentioning in a review.

However, I was thinking more in terms of the impression a photo creates on an audience when the audience doesn't know what gear was used to take it. And yes, how the image will be subjectively perceived is, in my view, ultimately more important than any objectively measureable characteristic, and therefore it has a a lot to do with a review of the gear. As I said, there is good reason to pay attention to objectively measurable characteristics. But in my view there is also good reason not to be a slave to them such that you ignore the possibily that non-measurable (or at least non-measures) characteristics can be important too. The difficulty, of course, is deciding how much weight to put on impressions which are hard, if not impossible, to support with objective data. That is not the same, though, as saying the lack of objective data to support something necessarily means it is irrelevant or wrong.

If you want to choose your gear based solely on measurable differences, and your only interest is in reviews which only consider such differences, you are welcome to take that approach, of course. Not everyone is going to agree that that is the only, or even a, sensible approach to take though.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> OK - "even pictures of a household cat may have to do" ?
> 
> I'll send you all some I took a few weeks ago with my R5, RF 70-200 f2.8L, with a B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter. Handheld, animal eye AF on all. DXO Photolab4 to my taste in post. Originals are slightly cropped to taste, then resized to 2.5k pixels longest side. 1:1 crops after each original are 2.5k pixels wide.
> 
> OK - I might not have photos from other 70-200 bodies & lenses to compare to, but I just thought I'd have some fun sending these off to all of you to enjoy.



Your images show all hairy details of life that photography can cat(ch)


----------



## Accutance (Nov 25, 2020)

jd7 said:


> how the image will be subjectively perceived is, in my view, ultimately more important than any objectively measureable characteristic, and therefore it has a a lot to do with a review of the gear.



No. Reviews are not focus testing, or at least rarely so. Again confounding subjective perceptions with the objectively measurable. A review is for the latter.

Even if focus testing was done for images produced by a given lens, would it be informative? For example, earlier I linked Vanessa Joy's comparison of the 50/1.8 vs 50/1.2. What do you think the average non-photographer tell you? What would seasoned photographers tell you about image quality of either lens in a "blind" test? How would that information weigh into your purchasing decision?

See?


----------

