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

[tron]

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).

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.

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...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5515135844/in/set-72157626112302225/lightbox/

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

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]

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).

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.

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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!

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]

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

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]

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