mppix said:
20% lighter and 20% less min focus distance (at 20% higher price). Pretty please
Cripes. I'd buy it in a heartbeat if it were 20% less MFD
gmon750 said:
CanonFanBoy said:
privatebydesign said:
Foxdude said:
How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.
Easy, revert to the MkI falloff and blur rendition. The MkII is so bad I never saw the utility in 'upgrading' to a lens that is far worse at rendering a scene empathetically. The MkII is great for sports etc where the emphasis is on subject sharpness and speed to acquire focus, but it was always too jarring in the background elements to do a better job then the MkI for portraits and event work in my personal opinion.
Sharpness is s severely over rated aspect of lens performance.
I agree. While I love a razor sharp lens for some things, there can be too much sometimes. I've thrown away a lot of photos because when I peep them they aren't pin sharp. I think that was a mistake on my part so I've pulled back on the reins a little bit. My wife is 54 and is not a fan of ultra-sharp photos of herself. A little unsharpness that doesn't have to be added in post is nice in a situation like that. It's one of the reasons I've been experimenting with vintage glass. Also, proper composition covers a multitude of sins.
Interesting. I would rather have a razor-sharp photo with all the detail possible, and remove it in post-processing, than to have a blurry/soft image to begin and be unable to bring out lost detail.
For me, it depends a lot on the subject. If it's portraiture, razor sharp is not important to me. In fact, a little bit of softness on the edges isn't a bad thing at all, and makes the photo look more realistic. If I'm photographing a pet (cats & dogs), it is only important for capturing things like the eyes and the nose. Because of textures in the animal, you'd never know if the lens was razor sharp or not in a lot of places.
However, if I'm photographing birds (so, patio shots with 70-200), sharpness is super important, because some features (like eyes, or beak) are really tiny and crispness really contributes to an impressive photograph; conversely, softness often is mistaken for lack of focus. Chromatic aberration can also really make bird photos less attractive (like a magenta or green halo between a bald eagle's head and the sky). Part of the pickiness is that there are already bazillions of every bird photographed, so we're all trying to take shots that rise above the crowd.
In the extreme, if it's a high resolution product shot that someone's paying for, razor sharp is really important, because if it's not, that's work in post to remove any softness, and sometimes (like a fabric), that is hard or impossible to achieve, because expectation is that when you zoom in, you see the little curlies fibers of wool at the edge, not a blurry edge or a sharp, cleaned-up edge.
gmon750 said:
As an very happy owner of the current f/2.8 70-200, the only thing I can think of to improve an already stellar lens is to make it lighter. That's all.
The current lens is a thing of beauty. I love the sharpness and the "L" quality construction. Sure, it's heavy but it's built like a tank and meant to take a beating. I just love it and always enjoy any opportunity to use it.
Yeah, the current lens is just amazing. I remember when it came out, I was just blown away. There are a lot of Canon-esque things that make it amazing, like the overall feel, the excellence of the manual focus ring, how little effort is required to take it from 70-200, and how durable it
feels.
When I pick up a Canon 70-200, I think I could use it in a war zone. When I pick up the equivalent (but much more expensive) lens by Sony, it feels like delicate electronics.
