TDP Image Quality posted -- 70-200 f/4L IS II: it's not much better

[slclick]

Bryans flare comparison was a huge show of improvement. Sure, it's a coatings thing but it matters.

 

[ahsanford]

Bryans flare comparison was a huge show of improvement. Sure, it's a coatings thing but it matters.

I noticed that as well. Great to see.

I still wish larger changes could be pursued -- even little things like a CPL window in the hood would have been appreciated.

- A

 

[Act444]

Well i was certainly disappointed with the Canon 24-105mm F4 IS Mark II. It was almost no better than the Mark 1 - apart from a slightly better IS.

Why do Canon bother to release new versions when there is little improvement?!

With a new Canon 5Dsr in the pipeline, we need better lenses.

If you want better lenses, get primes.

Realistically, most zooms are now as sharp as they can be made. Improvements are limited to coatings, IS, quality of machining, and the electronics. This improves copy variation and AF performance..... things that do not show up on a MTF chart, yet are solid reasons for a new version.

I have to agree - to get the most out of the 5DSR you really need to limit your lens pool to the best of primes...or at least that has been my experience. The ONE zoom lens that I got ok results out of was the 100-400 II, but even then I still wasn’t maximizing its potential.

The 35 1.4 II, 85 1.4 and 100 macro are the three lenses (particularly the 35 and 100) that I use it with primarily.

As for the new 70-200 f4, the improvement is slight, but the original was already pretty good TBH...looks like the upgrade is more in the flare resistance, IS, etc. than pure resolving power...

Yet I get it - the “megapixel race” continues on with the bodies, but that’s another issue altogether...

 

[Larsskv]

Well i was certainly disappointed with the Canon 24-105mm F4 IS Mark II. It was almost no better than the Mark 1 - apart from a slightly better IS.

Why do Canon bother to release new versions when there is little improvement?!

With a new Canon 5Dsr in the pipeline, we need better lenses.

If you want better lenses, get primes.

Realistically, most zooms are now as sharp as they can be made. Improvements are limited to coatings, IS, quality of machining, and the electronics. This improves copy variation and AF performance..... things that do not show up on a MTF chart, yet are solid reasons for a new version.

I have to agree - to get the most out of the 5DSR you really need to limit your lens pool to the best of primes...or at least that has been my experience. The ONE zoom lens that I got ok results out of was the 100-400 II, but even then I still wasn’t maximizing its potential.

The 35 1.4 II, 85 1.4 and 100 macro are the three lenses (particularly the 35 and 100) that I use it with primarily.

As for the new 70-200 f4, the improvement is slight, but the original was already pretty good TBH...looks like the upgrade is more in the flare resistance, IS, etc. than pure resolving power...

You can add the 16-35 LII to your list. My copy on the 5Ds was as good across the frame, if not better, than my 35LII when I compared them at f5.6. That says a lot, because it was even sharper at wider focal lengths.

 

[ethanz]

They can't win...

I think "Canon" in Japanese actually means "can't win"


;D

 

[wsmith96]

I have to agree - to get the most out of the 5DSR you really need to limit your lens pool to the best of primes...or at least that has been my experience. The ONE zoom lens that I got ok results out of was the 100-400 II, but even then I still wasn’t maximizing its potential.

The 35 1.4 II, 85 1.4 and 100 macro are the three lenses (particularly the 35 and 100) that I use it with primarily.

As for the new 70-200 f4, the improvement is slight, but the original was already pretty good TBH...looks like the upgrade is more in the flare resistance, IS, etc. than pure resolving power...

Yet I get it - the “megapixel race” continues on with the bodies, but that’s another issue altogether...

Completely agree with you here. I took a different approach on the megapixel race and bought another 5D (first version). All of my lenses look great at 12 megapixels.

 

[mb66energy]

I have to agree - to get the most out of the 5DSR you really need to limit your lens pool to the best of primes...or at least that has been my experience. The ONE zoom lens that I got ok results out of was the 100-400 II, but even then I still wasn’t maximizing its potential.

The 35 1.4 II, 85 1.4 and 100 macro are the three lenses (particularly the 35 and 100) that I use it with primarily.

As for the new 70-200 f4, the improvement is slight, but the original was already pretty good TBH...looks like the upgrade is more in the flare resistance, IS, etc. than pure resolving power...

Yet I get it - the “megapixel race” continues on with the bodies, but that’s another issue altogether...

Complete agree with you here. I took a different approach on the megapixel race and bought another 5D (first version). All of my lenses look great at 12 megapixels.

... except the non-IS f/4 70-200mm in my case @70mm where it was mushy in the corner regions. While it was fine for APS-C use. I too bought a 5D body to explore FF land and observed the same: per pixel sharpness with good lenses like f/2.8 24mm or f/2.0 100mm and very good texture reproduction!

I upgradet to a 2nd hand IS version which is perfect for 5D i under any setting and very good on current 24 Mpix bodies! Just with the mark i 2x teleconverter.

If I hadn'r upgradet for the mark i version I would take the ii version in an instant just for the silent IS system. But I got the mark i version for 600EUR two years ago , production is 4/2015 with 2.5 years warranty - so I am able to accept the noise

 

[Mikehit]

This does not surprise me at all - the original version is so good it is hard to see how it an get significantly better in optical terms.
However things like better and quieter IS, and quicker AF (esp with teleconverters) are all benefits in themselves.

 

[scyrene]

Why do Canon bother to release new versions when there is little improvement?!

One reason that has been suggested around here is that they may have altered the way they build them - moving to more automated/robotic manufacturing, which may save them money one way or another (in the long run). Not every update will show strongly on the customers' end.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Why do Canon bother to release new versions when there is little improvement?!

One reason that has been suggested around here is that they may have altered the way they build them - moving to more automated/robotic manufacturing, which may save them money one way or another (in the long run). Not every update will show strongly on the customers' end.

Have heard that too - and there may be more changes made under the covers as well - not necessarily improving IQ (which as others note may be getting close to what is achievable at (relatively) modest priced zooms), but which also give greater reliability / more efficient servicing, etc. If nothing else, a new model designation gives a longer support life.

 

[AlanF]

Why do Canon bother to release new versions when there is little improvement?!

One reason that has been suggested around here is that they may have altered the way they build them - moving to more automated/robotic manufacturing, which may save them money one way or another (in the long run). Not every update will show strongly on the customers' end.

Have heard that too - and there may be more changes made under the covers as well - not necessarily improving IQ (which as others note may be getting close to what is achievable at (relatively) modest priced zooms), but which also give greater reliability / more efficient servicing, etc. If nothing else, a new model designation gives a longer support life.

If they didn't bring out a new model but continued with the old one, then the old one would be the current model and have the long support life.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

[/quote]
If they didn't bring out a new model but continued with the old one, then the old one would be the current model and have the long support life.
[/quote]

Yes, sorry, my bad: poor use of words by me - what I meant to say was that a new model with (potentially) newer parts, could mean parts stock for future support would likely last longer into the future (based on purchasing the 'current' model now).

 

[Act444]

Why do Canon bother to release new versions when there is little improvement?!

One reason that has been suggested around here is that they may have altered the way they build them - moving to more automated/robotic manufacturing, which may save them money one way or another (in the long run). Not every update will show strongly on the customers' end.

If such a new manufacturing process can reduce variation among units within a particular model (“copy” variation if you will), it can be argued that this would benefit the consumer as well, but I don’t know if this has been proven or quantified.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The optical performance of the existing lens was so close to perfect, that even a little is a accomplishment. Looking at just center sharpness is like reading the specs on a Soiny camera. You need to look at everything. The lens had a substantial upgrade across the board, but I would not upgrade from thye old one unless it were my most used lens and my old one was wearing out.

 

[slclick]

The optical performance of the existing lens was so close to perfect, that even a little is a accomplishment. Looking at just center sharpness is like reading the specs on a Soiny camera. You need to look at everything. The lens had a substantial upgrade across the board, but I would not upgrade from thye old one unless it were my most used lens and my old one was wearing out.

I agree wholeheartedly and would add I would only purchase if you currently did not own a 70-200 f/4 lens. Otherwise, I see no reason not to. Looks great.