Alfieris > Tech Talk > Lens and Camera Sample Images

Lens and Camera Sample Images Galleries

40D vs. 5D Quick Comparison : Here are some 40D sample images with (fewer) 5D images for comparison. These shots were taken pretty quickly, no artistry here. I had the 40D for a very short time, so my test isn't very methodical (in particular, high-ISO noise tests are not well done). See my other galleries for more 5D sample images. Conclusions: 40D is great value; 5D images still look a little more natural (especially when looking at extra-large images) but the gap has been narrowed compared to 20D vs. 5D; I love the 40D 6.5 fps; LENSES ARE MOST IMPORTANT PURCHASE - DUH!!!! Lenses: 17-55 2.8 IS (EF-S, so 40D only), 35 1.4L, 85 1.2L II, 70-200 4L IS; lens and aperture are noted in image captions; you can also get EXIF info 40D Settings: RAW, Adobe RGB, EV + 1/3, High ISO NR, Highlight Tone Priority (could be affecting shadow noise), Picture Style Neutral, AI Servo, continuous drive, partial metering, Aperture Priority (Av) 5D Settings: RAW, Adobe RGB, EV + 1/3, Picture Style Neutral, AI Servo, continuous drive, partial metering, Aperture Priority (Av) Default CS3 ACR PP: Adobe RGB, 16-bit, Red Saturation -25, Blue Saturation -15, EV +0.00, Recovery 0, Fill 0 (7 for 5D - accidental, but not relevant), Blacks 5 (2 for 5D), Brightness 45, Contrast 30, Clarity +10, Vibrance +10, Auto WB (indoor shots only), no noise reduction (NR); differences from these defaults are noted in image captions Default CS3 PP: SmartSharpen 70%, 0.6, not "more accurate" (then edit->Fade Luminosity), Unsharp Mask (USM) 2%, 40, 0 (then edit->Fade Luminosity), convert to 8-bit sRGB Exposure: 40D tended to underexpose by at least one f-stop compared to 5D, particularly indoors; that's annoying Drive: 6.5 fps on 40D is awesome and missed on 5D; found myself using this all the time; best feature of the camera AF: 40D AI Servo stayed locked on with kids running/biking toward the camera (HUGE improvement over 20D); 5D AI Servo is no slouch either and stayed locked, too Noise: 40D underexposed, so my tests didn't come out great; nonetheless, the 5D clearly has less noise at ISO 800 and ISO 1600; note: I will try to get the 40D again and do a better set of tests Overall IQ: more lens-dependent than body-dependent; 5D images look a little more natural (especially when looking at extra-large images); 40D wide angle performed better than expected (EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is no slouch, 35L is better); 85LII images look better on 40D than expected and allow one to get in closer (due to 1.6x crop); 70-200 4L IS is a great lens, but I prefer the look from a prime a little more, particularly from a fast prime; 40D images are more contrasty out of the camera for some reason, perhaps to a fault of looking a little fake; 14-bit vs. 12-bit advantage on 40D did not show through in my tests (unless that explains the contrast difference); 40D images did not need more PP - contrary to what has been reported in other reviews - in fact, I needed to tone down the contrast with the 40D PP.

40D vs. 5D Quick Comparison

KEEPER: Canon 35mm f/1.4L : The 35L is a truly excellent wide-angle lens ($1100). On a 1.6x crop camera (20D, etc.), it has great colors and perspective. On a full-frame camera (5D, 1Ds), it also has the same field of view as a 22mm (35mm/1.6) lens on a 1.6x crop camera, and I find I don't usually need any wider. In fact, the lack of great wide-angle lenses below 35mm had been a big reason for going to a 5D and 35L. On the 5D I'm particularly impressed with the sharpness of this lens. This is due to the lower pixel density, which spreads the pixels out over more of the glass, thus placing less demand on the center of the lens. Sharpness peaks around f/2.8 and can be exceedingly good, but f/1.4 is surprisingly close in sharpness and contrast. The bokeh at f/1.4 is pretty yet limited due to wide angle. I'm starting to groove more on f/1.4 because of the subject isolation and sharpness. Vignetting is quite noticeable below f/2 on the 5D, but it doesn't bother me as I take mostly people shots. It's plain to see from the pictures below that the best aspect of this lens - aside from not needing a flash anymore(!) - is the up-close personal perspective it delivers on both the 20D and the 5D. It's the ultimate environmental portrait lens, particularly with children. Carrying around the prime forces me to move up close. If I had a zoom, I'd end up in the 50-100mm range out of laziness. Note that the minimum focusing distance is a nice 1.0 ft. On a full-frame, the lens often feels as if it's getting a little too close, particularly with adults, so one other lens to consider would be the 50mm f/1.2L ($1350) but it has a well-decumented back-focusing problem when using the center AF point at short distances. Also, I don't find 50mm a very interesting focal length for 1.6x or full-frame bodies. For a general-purpose zoom on a full-frame body, I'd get the 24-70 f/2.8L ($1150) because it has excellent image quality, but the 24-105 f/4L IS ($1050) would be more versatile with its extra 35mm and IS. If you need a little wider, the new 16-35 f/2.8L II zoom ($1500) is excellent at 16mm and 24mm, but doesn't come close to the 35L at 35mm. The 24-70 f/2.8L comes closer to the 35L at 35mm, but I'm just starting to really use the 35L at f/1.4 and am too hooked at this point. The 17-40 f/4L is a great value ($680) and works particularly well on a full-frame, but is no match for the 16-35 f/2.8L II. The 24 f/1.4L ($1100) is not as sharp as the new 16-35 f/2.8L II, but it provides f/1.4 for the very few who need it (not I) Canon announced a 14mm f/2.8L II ($2000+) in August that produces fantastic results for those who need as wide as possible for architectural interiors, etc. If I went ultra-wide, I think I'd go for the 14LII. to really get that different look. In summary, Canon deserves a lot of credit for improving its wide-angle offerings since 2006. To get any better, you need to move into super-expensive Zeiss and Leica glass. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

KEEPER: Canon 35mm f/1.4L

KEEPER: Canon 85mm f/1.2L II : All the hype is true. This lens is magic. I have never experienced a lens like this before. The lens renders pretty images even in bad light. My 135L stopped getting used for portraits, so I replaced it with the 300mm f/4L IS for more reach. At f/1.2, if you're close enough, the lens seems to render paintings rather than photos. The ugliest backgrounds are transformed into impressionist paintings. The skin tones are excellent. I was a little scared of achieving focus on the full-frame 5D @ f/1.2, but keeping both sets of eyelashes in the focus plane greatly increases the chances of getting a keeper. AI Servo, continuous drive mode, choosing the closest AF point, and focus bracketting also help, particularly if the subject is moving a little. f/1.2 is pretty addicting, albeit challenging up-close. At f/2 and higher, the lens has amazing color, contrast, and sharpness. The subject appears 3D and seems to pop out of the page more than I've seen with my other lenses. The images look so good out of the camera, I'm afraid to mess with them in Photoshop, but I still do a little fine and coarse sharpening. I had very high expectations for the colors, and they did not disappoint one bit. The bokeh, even at f/2, is in a different league. The sharpness and contrast exceeded my expections, but don't expect this lens to beat the 85/1.8 in raw sharpness alone. At 2.25 lb, the 85/1.2L is a serious piece of glass. It feels heavier than I had expected, but it's well worth its weight and its price ($1700). The focus mechanism on this Mark II version is fast enough and tracks most accurately, and I'm glad I can hear it because it's easy to know when I've stepped inside the minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 3.2 ft. If there's one complaint, I wish the minimum focusing distance were more like 2 ft. I bought a 12mm extension tube ($80), which reduces the minimum to 1.6 ft. but also shortens the maximum from infinity to 2.3 ft. and reduces DOF to such shallowness that it pretty much has to be used around f/4, but the bokeh is still great. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

KEEPER: Canon 85mm f/1.2L II

KEEPER: Canon 300mm f/4L IS : Overall the 300/4L IS is an incredibly versatile lens with excellent image quality in this price range ($1000). I recently swapped the 400mm f/5.6L for this 300mm because I need something in the 200-300mm range for candids with my 5D, I rarely need 400mm, I want something that can get much tighter head shots than my 85L, and the extra stop and IS come in handy in a lot of low-light situations such as stage performances. The 4.9 ft. minimum focusing distance (MFD) allows for some killer close-ups (even macro shots) - it's like having a completely different lens from the one originally intended (distant candids and sports). I'm extremely impressed with its sharpness for close-ups. The IS is really key for low-light shots of stationary subjects, but you need to keep the shutter half-pressed for a bit to allow it to spool up. The bokeh at f/4 is much better than expected. The images look sharper, more contrasty, and more saturated than those from my previously-owned 200/2.8L II or 135/2L, and that's saying a lot because those are two of Canon's very finest. I've used the lens mostly at f/4, but I have gotten some extremely sharp images at f/4.5 and plan to use it there by default. I don't see much loss in sharpness with the TC 1.4x (420mm). Focus reliability with moving subjects is a little more hit-or-miss than I would like. It's not an extremely fast-focusing lens like the 300 2.8L IS or even the 200 2.8L II. I sent the lens in to Canon for AF calibration and it did come back noticeably sharper in general, though the not-so-fast focus speed still affects reliability with moving subjects. Turning off IS helps with randomly moving subjects as long as the shutter speed is fast enough. The 5D is not as good as the 1DIII at tracking movement, so that could be part of the issue, along with the difficulty of tracking a longer focal length lens. I haven't tried the TC 1.4x(420mm) with moving subjects yet, which will slow down focus speed even more. Some alternatives... 200/2L/IS ($6000) - due out in April 2008; replacement for the legendary 200 1.8L which was discontinued due to lead in the glass elements (dangerous to Canon workers, not to users). Currently, the 300/2.8L/IS (as well as the 400/2.8L/IS) is sharper than the 200/1.8L and seems to have better colors, but the 200 has a low-light and subject-isolation advantage, the latter of which can make the 200 appear sharper. The 300 is also $2000 cheaper and weighs the same (5.6 lbs.). 300/f2.8L/IS ($3900) - Canon's sharpest lens ever (along with 400/2.8L/IS). Legendary colors, contrast, bokeh, and focus speed/reliability. Negligible degradation with 1.4x extender; very sharp with the 2x. Fairly hand-holdable. Cons are price, weight (5.6 lbs), conspicuousness, and MFD of 8.2 ft (can rectify with extension tube). I'd like to see Canon make a 300/f2L/IS which would probably weigh around 11 lbs. and cost $10000, but think of the background blur! 400/f5.6L ($1000) - almost as sharp as the 300/f4L IS and faster focusing, but get this only if you usually need at least 400mm and have good light. Note that the 300/f4L IS + TC 1.4x is about as sharp as the 400/f5.6L, except at full-frame corners, but the 400 is going to be much faster focusing than even the 300 w/o TC, so you should choose based on whether you need AF-speed/longer-reach vs. IS/less-reach/macro/versatility. 400/f2.8L/IS ($6600) - 12 lbs; the best 400mm; tied with 300/2.8L/IS as sharpness king; for pro sports photographers; tripod/monopod is required. 400/f4/DO/IS ($5200) - only 4.3 lbs, but not any sharper than the 400/5.6L; it's too much money for IS and one extra stop. 500/f4L/IS ($5500) - 8.3 lbs (relatively lightweight), great for birding; could also use it for field sports with a full-frame body instead of a 300mm or 400mm, but wouldn't have f/2.8 speed; this and the 600/4L/IS are close behind the 300 and 400 in sharpness. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

KEEPER: Canon 300mm f/4L IS

RETURNED: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye : This fisheye lens is pretty fun to play with and does a very nice job. For $580, it's a good value. I ended up returning it because it wasn't sharp enough and because my wife wasn't crazy about the look of the images it produced. I was also too lazy to de-fish them during post-processing. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

RETURNED: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye

RETURNED: Canon 24mm f/1.4L : I tried two copies of this lens on a 20D, then returned both of them. For $1100, I expect to be wowed. The lens wasn't sharp enough, the colors didn't stand out, and it didn't auto-focus very reliably at all. About the only good reason I can think of for getting this lens is for low-light usage, and that's not enough for me to spend $1100. I played with a couple copies of the 16-35mm f/2.8L, then ended up getting a 5D and the excellent 35mm f/1.4L (35mm is like 22mm on a 20D). In all fairness, I didn't try the 24L for any landscape work - I've read that it focuses better for far subjects. I also never tried it on a 5D. This lens doesn't get nearly as much good press as the 35L and I think there's a good reason for that. Still, I'd like to rent it for my 5D before forming a final opinion. Finally, the new 16-35 f/2.8L II clearly beats the 24L in sharpness, so there's even less reason now to own the 24L - basically for those who want to use it at f/1.4. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

RETURNED: Canon 24mm f/1.4L

SOLD: Canon 50mm f/1.4 : Sharp and a great value at $350. On a 1.6x crop body (e.g., 20D) I still prefer the 85mm f/1.8 and 35 f/1.4L, but the 85mm can be a little tight indoors when you want more than a head shot. The 50mm comes in handy in these cases. I've had occasional auto-focus issues with this lens on the 20D (as others have reported), particularly when not shooting up-close. Since I moved to a full-frame 5D with its wider field of view, I've sold this and use the 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II mainly, and note that 85mm on a 5D has about the same field of view as a 53mm (85mm/1.6) on a 1.6x crop body. Canon released a 50/1.2L ($1600) in Nov/2006. So far, reviews have been a little mixed but the general consensus is that it's not as good as the 85/1.2L. Auto-focus reliability, sharpness, and contrast - compared to the 50/1.4 - seem to be a little disappointing given the price, but other reviews indicate the opposite. I'd like to see the price and the reviews settle down a little more. It would be nice to have the 50/1.2L as my 35/1.4L can sometimes be too wide on a full-frame camera, particularly for adult subjects. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

SOLD: Canon 50mm f/1.4

SOLD: Canon 85mm f/1.8 : I recently upgraded from this excellent 85mm/1.8 to the legendary 85mm/1.2L II ($1700), which is in a completely different league. See its gallery parallel to this one. This was my favorite lens when I had a 1.6x crop body (20D). At $350, this is a must-have for any Canon 1.6x-body user who can't afford the 85mm f/1.2L II or needs faster focusing. This lens auto-focuses very reliably and quickly on a 1.6x crop body and is also great for indoor sports such as basketball. With the full-frame 5D, the 135mm f/2L has about the same field of view as an 85mm on the 20D and more sharpness and color saturation than the 85/1.8, so I used the 135mm more with the 5D before I got the 85mm f/1.2L II, particularly outdoors where there's enough room to back up for portraits. The 85/1.8 also loses some color saturation and contrast as it's opened up below f/2.8. That said, the 85/1.8 takes some very sharp and contrasty photos stopped down a little. An alternative in the same price range is Canon's 100mm f/2.8 Macro. It allows you to get in much closer (5.9 inches) and is just as sharp. You obviously need more light or higher ISO, though. And you won't be able to blur the background as much. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

SOLD: Canon 85mm f/1.8

SOLD: Canon 135mm f/2L : When I had the 85/1.8, I preferred this 135/2L on the 5D for portraits due to its better color and sharpness below f/4. Once I got the legendary 85/1.2L II for portraits, I swapped the 135/2L for the equally-good 200/2.8L II ($625) because it's a focal length I needed more. If you're always going to have the 1.4x TC on the 135/2L (189mm), then you may as well just get the 200/2.8L and avoid any loss in sharpness and focusing reliability. The 135/2L is an excellent telephoto prime lens for close-ups, candids and sports ($900). f/2 is sharp and comes in handy for low-light action shots. This lens is particularly sharp with my full-frame 5D, which spreads its pixels out over more of the glass (less pixel density at the center). The bokeh at f/2 beats that of the 85/1.8 wide open due to the longer focal length. With the full-frame 5D, one has to get in even closer to fill the frame, thus creating even more bokeh for the same framing and focal length as on a 1.6x crop camera - the 5D needs to be stopped down 1 1/3 stops to achieve the same DOF (e.g., use f/3.5 instead of f/2). Unless you are trying for ultimate bokeh, it's probably best for extreme facial close-ups to stop this lens down to at least f/4 on the 5D. It helps to use a shutter speed of at least 1/200 to avoid blur from camera shake. With a 1.4x extender ($280) one can make this an 189mm f/2.8 without noticeable loss in sharpness, and this is a great focal length for indoor sports. This lens, even with the 1.4x extender, is sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS zoom, so I sold the zoom and got a 300mm f/4L IS for more reach in outdoor sports with my 5D. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

SOLD: Canon 135mm f/2L

SOLD: Canon 200mm f/2.8L II : When I had the 85/1.8, I preferred the 135/2L ($900) on the 5D for portraits due to its better color and sharpness below f/4. Once I got the the legendary 85/1.2L II for portraits, I swapped the 135/2L for this equally-good 200/2.8L II ($660) because 200mm and 300mm are focal lengths I need more (I also have the 300/4L IS). In the end, I discovered that I needed only the 300mm, so I sold the 200L as good as it is. The 200/2.8L focuses extremely fast and reliably, and it is very sharp at f/2.8 which is where I mainly use it. Close-ups look particularly good. The minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 4.9 ft. is like 3.3 ft. at 135mm, which is close enough to the 135/2L's MFD of 3.0 ft. With a 25mm extension tube, the 200/2.8L II's focus range is reduced to 3.2-5.9 ft. allowing for the same kind of extreme close-ups one can get with the 300/4L (MFD of 4.9 ft. * 200/300 = 3.3 ft.). All in all, the 200/2.8L II looks, smells, and renders images exactly like the much-adored 135/2L but at 200mm f/2.8. If you like the 135/2L on a 1.6x crop body, you'll like the lesser-known 200/2.8L on a full-frame body (same FOV) because you can avoid the 1.4x TC on the 135/2L for action shots. I think the 200/2.8L II may even be slighly better than the 135/2L. That said, I don't think it's as sharp, contrasty, color-saturated, or versatile as the 300/4L IS. The 300L is that good. I sent the 200L in for calibration (which I have done with most of my lenses), and I think it's now about as good as it's gonna get, which is pretty darn good. I intended to use the 200L for indoor action shots and indoor performances where the 300mm is too long, but it turns out that I really don't encounter those situations right now. F/2.8 may, in fact, still be too slow for indoor action shots in dimly-lit gyms - a 1.6x crop body and the 135/2L may be a better choice in those situations. On the other hand, Canon has started releasing some camera bodies in 2007 (1DIII) that produce clean ISO 3200, which reduces the need for an f/2 lens. The more versatile 70-200/2.8L IS is a notch lower in image quality and focusing speed, and much heavier (3.2 lbs.), expensive ($1700), and male-compensatingly conspicuous - I'd rather use the 85L and 200L/300L. The newer 70-200 f/4 IS ($1060) is actually sharper than the 200L and has IS, but losing an extra f-stop would be a problem for indoor action, plus it's almost twice as expensive. If you're willing to focus manually, the Leica R 180mm f/2 APO is supposedly the best lens ever made. The Canon 180/3.5L Macro is also excellent with great colors, but it's not fast enough in aperture or focusing speed for what I need in this range. The best auto-focus and widest-aperture lens in this range is the 200mm f/1.8L, which has legendary status. They are no longer made due to lead content (harmful to Canon workers grinding lenses, not to us lens users); $4000-$5000 on Ebay (original price was $2500); 6.6 lbs. Canon announced in October 2007 a new 200mm f/2L IS that is due out in April 2008, and this looks extremely promising, but it will cost $6000. I plan to upgrade my 300 4L IS to the 300 2.8L IS, which is the sharpest Canon lens ever. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

SOLD: Canon 200mm f/2.8L II

RETURNED: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 EF-S : If you need superwide on a 1.6x crop body, this is about your only choice. For $690, it's priced fairly. However, it was too wide for me. I didn't like the perspective distoration at 10mm. See the 1st Epcot picture below where my nephew's feet are larger than the Epcot ball. :-) The sharpness and colors are also a little weak. In all fairness, I never tried the 10-22mm for landscapes where it supposedly does pretty well. I returned the lens and ultimately ended up going with a 5D and the excellent 35mm f/1.4L (35mm is like 22mm on a 20D). I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

RETURNED: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 EF-S

RETURNED: Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L I : This was the last wide-angle lens I tried on my 20D before ultimately ending up with the 5D and the excellent 35mm f/1.4L (35mm is like 22mm on a 20D). Compared to the 17-40mm f/4L, the 16-35mm f/2.8L is sharper, has much better colors, and focuses more reliably (f/2.8 lenses enable usage of the 20D's center point cross-hair AF sensor). The lens focuses well at infinity and is very good for colorful landscape shots. However, for $1370, I expected more. It was very sharp on the 35mm end, but softer than I wanted on the 16mm end. I really wanted to love the lens. In fact, I tried two copies, which ended up being about the same. The 16-35mm is soft in the corners on full-frame particularly at 16mm, but Canon came out with a new 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens that is sharper edge-to-edge at 16mm, though the MTF charts don't show any improvement at 35mm. Canon also announced a new 14mm f/2.8L II ultra-wide prime in August 2007 and it looks very promising for shooting architectural interiors, etc. On a 1.6x crop body, I'd defiinitely get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because it is very sharp and because it has more reach and IS. I never had a chance to try it while I still had the 20D. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

RETURNED: Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L I

SOLD: Canon 400mm f/5.6L : I had purchased this for my 5D because the 135mm/f2L with 1.4x teleconverter (189mm) was usually not long enough for field sports such as baseball or soccer. This is sharper than my old 70-200/2.8L/IS zoom, and it's very lightweight (2.8 lbs). Great for distant candids. A real gem for this price range ($1050). When hand-holding, try to keep the shutter speed at least 1/800. With f/5.6, you may need to increase ISO. It would be great if the lens were f/4 with IS, but it wouldn't be in this price range any more. f/5.6 does not provide enough bokeh, but it's very sharp. The minimum focusing distance of 11.5 feet can be annoying for close-ups sometimes. The lens focuses very fast, by the way. I recently sold this and purchased the 300mm f/4L IS because I need something more often in the 200-300mm range, I want something that can get very tight head shots without an extension tube, and the extra stop and IS come in handy in low-light situations. My conclusion is that it makes sense to get the 400mm only if you know you'll almost always need at least 400mm. This typically means you are shooting wildlife or field sports in good light. In the end, I felt that I needed 300mm more often than 400mm even with my full-frame 5D, so I'm willing to compromise with the 1.4x TC when needed (420mm). I'm going to miss the sharpness and fast focusing of the 400/5.6L. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

SOLD: Canon 400mm f/5.6L

RETURNED: Canon 17-40mm f/4L : The 17-40mm f/4L is a very solid performer and a very good value at $680. It's not as good as the more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L ($1370) in terms of sharpness, colors(!), and auto-focus reliability. The 17-40mm is also somewhat soft on the 17mm end. However, it has one advantage: the extra 5mm of length come in handy more than you'd think. I tried 2 copies of the 17-40 and 2 copies of the 16-35 as well as numerous other wide angles. I ultimately ended up with the 5D and the excellent 35mm f/1.4L (35mm is like 22mm on a 20D) and have never looked back. I've read that the 17-40 does better on a full-frame body such as the 5D. Perhaps this is due to the lower pixel density. I'm holding out for Canon to create an excellent prime in the 20mm range. On a 1.6x crop body, I'd probably get the new EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because it is supposedly very sharp and because it has more reach and IS. I never had a chance to try it while I still had the 20D. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

RETURNED: Canon 17-40mm f/4L

SOLD: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS : This is supposedly Canon's best zoom lens. It's certainly very impressive in terms of price ($1700), size, and weight (3.2 lbs). People will stare and wonder what you are trying to prove (or compensate for :-). The lens has a solid build and performs very well in terms of sharpness and contrast. I had it bolted onto my 10D and 20D for about a year and a half. I didn't mind the weight at all. But I didn't feel that the image quality was excellent enough to justify the price. Sharpness at f/2.8 was disappointing. The lens didn't focus reliabily enough on my 20D. I find the colors from the lens rather "blah" and flesh tones somewhat "pasty" for lack of a better word. The lens didn't take the TC 1.4x as well as, say, the 135/2L. I never tried the lens on my 5D, though I doubt it would affect the result much, particularly regarding the colors. Unless you really need a zoom in this range, I believe a set of primes can deliver a MUCH better result, even with the 1.4x TC. For less or not much more money, you can have much better image quality (sharpness, contrast, colors), faster and more reliable focusing, lower-light usability for action shots, more sharpness wide open, more bokeh, and less weight to lug around. It was a no-brainer for me. Here are some choices for various budgets: $1530: 85/1.8, 135/2L, 1.4x TC - this is what I tried first with my 20D and then 5D - excellent combo $2350: 85/1.2L II, 200/2.8L II - this is what I have now for my 5D (plus the 300/4L IS) - even better, there's really no substitute for the amazing 85/1.2L A zoom alternative is the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8L ($1140). Some say it's sharper and focuses more reliably. Others say the IS is key and the IS version is sharper in some cases. Many lately are saying that the newer 70-200 f/4L IS ($1060) is the sharpest of the bunch, it has a newer version of IS that can provide up to 4 f-stops, and it's a lot lighter (1.7 lbs). It's a moot issue for me now that I'm committed to primes, though I'd like to try the 70-200 f/4L IS. I recommend the The-Digital-Picture.com for comprehensive reviews.

SOLD: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS





































Powered by SmugMug | Login | Shopping Cart | Help | Portions © 2009 SmugMug, Inc.
Show FeedsAvailable Feeds | What are feeds?
Recent Galleries:
Atom FeedAtom | RSS FeedRSS
Recent Photos:
Atom FeedAtom | RSS FeedRSS



Recent Videos:
Atom FeedAtom | RSS FeedRSS | iPod| AppleTV