Canon 70-200 F4 IS sharper than F2.8 IS brother?

[Shad0w]

Is the Canon 70-200 F4 IS sharper than F2.8 IS brother?

Use your mouse over.

Am I the only one that thinks the F4 is sharper than the F2.8 when they are both set to F4?

Click here

Also looks like there is allot more CA in the 2.8

Ive heard a few people suggest this... and that it might be due to the fact the F4 IS has newer glass along with the florite element.

Play with the Fstops and let me know what you think.

[Ray]

Interesting review site. The 70-200/4 IS does appear to have marginally less CA. Not sure how significant that is in real world images on the print, but it's good to know that the new lens is not worse than the 70-200/2.8 IS.

Have you tried comparing the 50/1.2 (at f1.2) with the 50/1.4 (at f1.4)? Now there's what I would call a substantial difference.

[francois]

Interesting review site. The 70-200/4 IS does appear to have marginally less CA. Not sure how significant that is in real world images on the print, but it's good to know that the new lens is not worse than the 70-200/2.8 IS.
...

I cannot test both versions as I only own the f/4 IS now. But in the tests published in Chasseur d'image, the only technical drawbacks of the f/4 version (on a Canon 5D) were more distortion and a bit more vignetting at full aperture. Resolution was at least equal to the f/2.8 version. Unless you shoot sports or need portraiture, the f/4 IS makes more sense.

[TwiceDaily]

Is the Canon 70-200 F4 IS sharper than F2.8 IS brother?

Use your mouse over.

Am I the only one that thinks the F4 is sharper than the F2.8 when they are both set to F4?

Click here

Also looks like there is a lot more CA in the 2.8

Ive heard a few people suggest this... and that it might be due to the fact the F4 IS has newer glass along with the florite element.

Play with the Fstops and let me know what you think.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I must admit I find this quite disturbing. Having run through all the different f-stop combinations, the F4.0 seems sharper everytime, the 2.8 also shows quite severe CA. I wonder if the 2.8 they had was a particularly poor copy?

The reason I am disturbed is because I have just shelled out for  the 2.8 IS version  

 Although, I had read well over  2 years ago in the British publication "the British Journal  of Photography", that the F4 non IS performed better with the 1DsMK2 than the 2.8 IS. Maybe this is just the final proof.

I'm hoping the 2.8 lens they used was poor  

[Shad0w]

Ive been flipping through the other test lenses they have, I know the 17-55 f2.8 IS very well and its razor sharp yet this test shows it looks like crap... something is fishy here!!!

[Jonathan Wienke]

All of the Canon 70-200 lenses are capable of excellent quality. Unit-to-unit variation is more significant than overall variation between models. The CA in the images is insignificant; well within what is completely correctable in ACR or the PS Lens Correction tool. I'd say their f/2.8 IS sample is not as good as mine; i've shot tens of thousands of frames and rarely notice any CA or other optical problems in the results.

[howiesmith]

All of the Canon 70-200 lenses are capable of excellent quality. Unit-to-unit variation is more significant than overall variation between models.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have no opinin about the truth of this statement.  I do find it interesting though that much is made about sample to sample variations between similar lenses (so much so that buyers cherry pick), and yet absolute comparisons and conclusions are made when "testing" one lens with one other dissimilar lens.  It seems the only valid conclusion would be this lens is sharper than that lens, and not f/4 lenses are sharper than 2.8 lenses.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It seems the only valid conclusion would be this lens is sharper than that lens, and not f/4 lenses are sharper than 2.8 lenses.

I agree. my 70-200/2.8 IS is definitely better than the one in the comparison site.

[Giedo]

I sent an email to the guy behind the site, Bryan Carnathan, because I was surprised about the testing of his 100-400: it is significant sharper at the long end then at the short end. While my lens shows exacttly the opposite... (and so do other lens reviewers state on the net).

He confirmed to me that his version is indeed sharper at the long end!!

There must be a big variation in between individual lenses...

Btw I find his initiative for this site absolutely great. It is a real powerful tool!

[Shad0w]

Yea I know I braught this whole site / test up but I dont put much weight in it..

Just picked up my 70-200 F2.8 IS from vistek today   Its got a manuf date of Nov 2006.  Pretty fresh

Also picked up a 1.4X extender for it, and a 25mm extension tube for my 100mm F2.8 macro lens.

MAN THIS HOBBY is addictive

[jani]

Fascinating; the f/4L IS is vignetting significantly more than the f/2.8L IS at f/4, both at 70mm and 200mm. Where the f/2.8L IS is showing almost completely uniform intensity, the f/4L IS obviously doesn't.

I'm a bit concerned with the chromatic aberrations in the f/2.8L IS samples, they're still very noticeable at f/8 with the test subject. I must admit that I haven't tested my own sample for CA, but that's because I've found no grounds for dissatisfaction in everyday use.

[phila]

The published MTF curves for the non IS f4 show better figures than for both of the f2.8s (I haven't compared the IS f4).

I was happy with my f2.8 (non IS) and even more happy with the f4. A trade up to the IS version won't be too far away however.

[Shad0w]

Looks like what we are seeing is right,

here is another new review pointing the the same conclusion, the F4 is sharper:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...0_4is/index.htm

[jani]

Looks like what we are seeing is right,

here is another new review pointing the the same conclusion, the F4 is sharper:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...0_4is/index.htm

That review is testing only with a APS-C sized sensor, that of the EOS 350D.

I see that it still has noticeable vignetting at 200mm, even more than the f/2.8L IS with the 1.4 extender at f/4. And remember, with an APS-C sensor.

So yes, it apparently is overall sharper, but there are other downsides that may or may not be important, depending on your needs.