[midget]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman /img/forum/go_quote.gif On a full frame couldn't 70-200 2.8 is perform nearly as well as the 85 1.2 and 200 1.8.

the 70-200 is, regardless of what its on, wont be as sharp as either of those primes, nor will it go to f1.8, let alone 1.2

 

[wanderman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by midget /img/forum/go_quote.gif the 70-200 is, regardless of what its on, wont be as sharp as either of those primes, nor will it go to f1.8, let alone 1.2

even at the pixel level is it possible to notice the difference between the two lenses at a similar aperture? I am not familiar with those two pieces of glass.

 

[gilency]

Just got the 70-200 F 2.8L Canon Ultrasonic with image stabilizer.
Kind of big but sweet looking. Have not used it. Just got it.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman /img/forum/go_quote.gif even at the pixel level is it possible to notice the difference between the two lenses at a similar aperture? I am not familiar with those two pieces of glass.

70-200 2.8 IS is weak @ 200mm @ 2.8.

All of the L primes are sharper @ 2.8 than their zoom counterparts.

Here is 85 1.2 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

and 200 1.8 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

 

[wanderman]

than lan. that helped alot.

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif 70-200 2.8 IS is weak @ 200mm @ 2.8. All of the L primes are sharper @ 2.8 than their zoom counterparts. Here is 85 1.2 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results and 200 1.8 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8 Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

That may be true. Mine says L IS USM. I paid about 900.00. I am not a professional and would not be willing to pay more for what I want it for. I really like it.
Same as my Canon T1i. I think is a great camera for my needs, smaller in size (my wife really likes that) and very intuitive and easy to use.

 

[Punnisher]

Well I think I am going to go for the Canon 50mm 1.4. $350 is pretty reasonable for what you get. Build quality, usm, better lens hood mounting, etc.

Lenses that are wider seem to be either much slower or much more expensive.

At any rate, I'll likely be using this lens for portraits, so the fact that it won't end up being a "true" 50mm view doesn't bother me much.

Edit: Though I can't deny that having a fast wide-angle would be fantastic. Oh my aching wallet.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilency /img/forum/go_quote.gif That may be true. Mine says L IS USM. I paid about 900.00. I am not a professional and would not be willing to pay more for what I want it for. I really like it. Same as my Canon T1i. I think is a great camera for my needs, smaller in size (my wife really likes that) and very intuitive and easy to use.

$900 for the 2.8 IS used is an unbelievable price!

Don't worry about those primes being better. They are about nearly $2000 and 200 1.8 is discontinued and 200 2.0 IS is nearly $5000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I think I am going to go for the Canon 50mm 1.4. $350 is pretty reasonable for what you get. Build quality, usm, better lens hood mounting, etc.

The build quality isn't that good and the USM is not true USM but micro-USM. That motor is the weak spot and fails. Poll at POTN form show an uncomfortable amount of people with with issues. My 50 1.4 doesn't focus anymore and I have to send it in for fixing. So you should baby it.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif 70-200 2.8 IS is weak @ 200mm @ 2.8. All of the L primes are sharper @ 2.8 than their zoom counterparts. Here is 85 1.2 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results and 200 1.8 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8 Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

The new 70-200/4 L IS is far better optically than the 70-200/2.8 L IS. It also competes very well against the Canon primes in that range. (Some of the primes don't approach the sharpness of the zoom until stopped down to at least f/4) Throw in 4-stop IS and you have a pretty amazing lens.

I've been considering selling my 70-200/4 L non-IS and picking up one of these. The non-IS f/4 lens is no slouch, but the new one is definitely better.

Edit: If you want a 50/1.4 you can shoot wide open, take a look at the Sigma. It costs more, but it's significantly better than the Canon. I tend to shoot my fast glass wide open or close to it a lot. I've used the Canon 50/1.4 a few times, and I don't care much for it above f/2 or so. And if you can't shoot a fast lens wide open, it's not really worth the money.

 

[jordanross]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I think I am going to go for the Canon 50mm 1.4. $350 is pretty reasonable for what you get. Build quality, usm, better lens hood mounting, etc.

I agree I just got this lens the build quality is far superior to the 50mm F1.8...

Very excited about this thread, I bought a 50D recently but I found the high ISO performance atrocious. I was gonna upgrade to the 5D MkII, and extra $1600

Instead by happenstance I found someone who wanted to do a straight trade for a MINT 5D MkI

He wanted a cropped sensor for some of his EF-S lenses. So it worked out for both of us. I am very excited to have this camera, the high ISO on this camera is amazing at iso 3200 it looks like natural film grain

 

[Punnisher]

I'd like a 35mm 1.4 lens but Canon's is $1500. It's strange that a 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 are way cheaper, about 300-400. Any thoughts on this matter?

Having a fast all-around prime is really what I'm after.

 

[onform]

It's all to do with the red rubber band my friend..

 

[Punnisher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by onform /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's all to do with the red rubber band my friend..

I know L lenses are very expensive. Perhaps I'm being to picky about getting that 50mm viewpoint and should just go with the Sigma 30 1.4? It's so hard to decide.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like a 35mm 1.4 lens but Canon's is $1500. It's strange that a 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 are way cheaper, about 300-400. Any thoughts on this matter?

The Sigma 30 1.4 is a crop sensor lens not full frame. The Canon 50 1.4 is weaker wide open, less contrast, resolution, doesn't have real USM, etc.

Canon 35 1.4 is 1250 not 1500.

 

[brotherlen]

The Sigma EX lenses are a great buy. I've used the 12-24 in Afghanistan, it held up great and took good pictures. The Canon L lenses are also great, but when it comes to price/amount of lens you get, Sigma EX takes it. They have a decent build to them and usually give you a real padded case and lens hood. I was mad when I purchased two L lenses and they gave me a cheap lens hood and a suede sack for my 24-70L and a half assed nylon thing for my 70-200L IS, I mean, for 1700 USD, I would like at least a decent lens hood to match the body of the lens, which was built like a tank.