Anything shot with 70-200 f4 IS USM + 7D
- Thread starter eddiemrg
- Start date
- Status
Enough that I AFMA'd the lens a second time. Still not sharp.
The 7D has a very demanding sensor and with the 70-200 F4 I always felt cheated...the image just wasn't as sharp as I got from my 70-200 2.8 at F2.8. Mind you, the same applies to the 24-105 which also needs to be used at F5.6 to do justice to the 7D sensor.
So far the only lenses I feel are up to what the 7D can produce wide open are the new 24-70II, the 70-200II, the 70-300L, the trusty old 50 F1.4 and of course the new big whites. Even the 100-400 which works very well on the 5DII and 5DIII doesn't quite cut it - close, but it could be better. I am sure there might be other lenses, but these are what I have used in the field.
The 7D has a very demanding sensor and with the 70-200 F4 I always felt cheated...the image just wasn't as sharp as I got from my 70-200 2.8 at F2.8. Mind you, the same applies to the 24-105 which also needs to be used at F5.6 to do justice to the 7D sensor.
So far the only lenses I feel are up to what the 7D can produce wide open are the new 24-70II, the 70-200II, the 70-300L, the trusty old 50 F1.4 and of course the new big whites. Even the 100-400 which works very well on the 5DII and 5DIII doesn't quite cut it - close, but it could be better. I am sure there might be other lenses, but these are what I have used in the field.
Upvote
0
vbi said:
Interesting and a bit disappointing.
If I happened to take part to a Safari or something like that, I would consider buying a 100-400mm for my 5D classic... or, alternatively, buying a 1.4 extender (II or III) plus a crop body (7D or 60D, new or used): this combo would grant my existing 70-200 F/4 IS a reach of 448mm @ F/5.6, not much different from a 100-400mm on a Full Frame body.
A crop body + extender 1.4 would cost about the same as a 100-400mm here in Italy.
Any other opinions about the combo 7D + 70-200 F/4 IS L + extender 1.4x?
Thanky you in advance!
Upvote
0
Thanks.eddiemrg said:Wow, nice picture
I was considering f/2.8 is ii but it is too heavy and expensive too :-(
how much soft at f/4?
Well I got the 70-200mm f/4 L IS first,and later traded it in to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.
Which was an expensive way to get there, but never mind.
I found the f/4 (IS) version of the lens to be VERY sharp; it certainly didn't disappoint me in that (or any) sense.
I just had to have the f/2.8 one in the end, though!
The general feeling round here (CR) seems to be that the f/4 IS version is about as sharp as the f/2.8 version,
and both are VERY sharp.
The non-IS versions are reckoned to be less sharp, I seem to remember. Also, not weather-sealed, IIRC. BUT that's just me recalling what I've read on here about them. I have no experience with the non-IS versions myself.
Upvote
0
I have used the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM- and I own a 7D.
However for my purposes, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM won from a perspective of having an extra 100mm reach, and being almost as 'fast' as the f/4 for the same mm (it stays f/4 for quite a while, and then f/4.5, etc). So I bought the 70-300mm L soon after it was released.
Most reviews will show that both lenses are very sharp, even wide open. My 70-300mm L is still very sharp at 300mm f/5.6 (the setting I use most) - but it is a bit sharper at 70mm (if I look closely). But at 300mm f/5.6 it still knocks the socks of most lenses. Though it needs to be taken into account there is sample to sample lens variation in IQ.
The 7D is definitely more demanding on lenses than eg an 8MP or 12MP equivalent APS-C. I have a number of lenses, and eg the 15-85mm really outshone my (now sold) 28-135mm on the 7D. But on the 350D, while the difference between these 2 lenses was noticeable, the difference was not AS noticeable as on the 7D.
I can highly recommend the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, but recommend the 70-300mm L if you can afford the extra bit of money. The 70-300mm L is very hand-holdable (it's 4-stop IS is very good, and its USM focus very fast & accurate). Though built like a tank, it's not too heavy to transport (or have in a bag) all day. I like it's 'stumpy' design and that the zoom ring is at the end of the lens (that's what I prefer!).
Paul
However for my purposes, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM won from a perspective of having an extra 100mm reach, and being almost as 'fast' as the f/4 for the same mm (it stays f/4 for quite a while, and then f/4.5, etc). So I bought the 70-300mm L soon after it was released.
Most reviews will show that both lenses are very sharp, even wide open. My 70-300mm L is still very sharp at 300mm f/5.6 (the setting I use most) - but it is a bit sharper at 70mm (if I look closely). But at 300mm f/5.6 it still knocks the socks of most lenses. Though it needs to be taken into account there is sample to sample lens variation in IQ.
The 7D is definitely more demanding on lenses than eg an 8MP or 12MP equivalent APS-C. I have a number of lenses, and eg the 15-85mm really outshone my (now sold) 28-135mm on the 7D. But on the 350D, while the difference between these 2 lenses was noticeable, the difference was not AS noticeable as on the 7D.
I can highly recommend the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, but recommend the 70-300mm L if you can afford the extra bit of money. The 70-300mm L is very hand-holdable (it's 4-stop IS is very good, and its USM focus very fast & accurate). Though built like a tank, it's not too heavy to transport (or have in a bag) all day. I like it's 'stumpy' design and that the zoom ring is at the end of the lens (that's what I prefer!).
Paul
Upvote
0
Attached is a photo of the blue angels at the Chicago air and water show. Taken with t2i, 70-200 f4 IS + x1.4 III so it is a pretty close representation of what the that lens + extender combo would be with the 7d. I now have the 7D and I can say that the 70-200 f4 IS performs excellently with it. My only complaint is that I feel the 70-200 focal length range is a better companion to FF than crop. Many times I find the 70 too long and the 200 too short for my needs, which has me switching back to the 100-400 or 15-85. But when 70-200 on a crop fits the focal length i need the results are superb!
Also forgive the lowing quality of the image as I just pulled it from my Facebook and posted it here as I am not at home.
Also forgive the lowing quality of the image as I just pulled it from my Facebook and posted it here as I am not at home.
Attachments
Upvote
0
eddiemrg said:Woooah!
Awesome advices right there
In the very first moment I was thinking about 70-300 L and now I am considering it back.
I nave seen a bunch of shots come with it band sede rally nice.
70-300 L mantains f/4 from 70 to.....?
Thanks!
According to TDP, the 70-300L is at f/4 from 70-103, f/4.5 from 104-154, f/5 from 155-228 and f/5.6 from 229-300, so you lose up to 2/3 of a stop compared to the 70-200 f/4. The 70-300L is fatter but shorter than the 70-200 f/4, which helps because it takes less space in larger camera bags (vertical versus on its side). If you plan to be above 200mm a lot (i.e. using a TC), the 70-300L may be a better option. A variable max aperture is not a big deal unless you plan on using manual settings a lot. Either lens will do fine outdoors in adequate light, but both will push ISOs higher for dim/indoor situations, where f/2.8 lens and FF bodies really help.
Upvote
0
pj1974 said:
+1 - I have used two copies each of both the 70-200mm f/4 lenses (IS and non IS) and definitely prefer the 70-300L for its form factor, IQ, and extra reach. This is a minor thing, but I find the IS much quieter and better behaved than the 70-200, which always sounded like insects trapped in the lens.
Upvote
0
I love my 70-200 f/4L IS USM, perhaps because it was the first L lens I ever bought. It is plenty sharp at f/4, and doesn't improve all that much stopped down. I haven't got that many shots with the 7D as I mainly use it with my 5D II. but here's a link to one I took in Scotland shot at f/4. Crap picture but the sharpness is there!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/7578890556/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/7578890556/#
Upvote
0
I believe these are all @ f/4. It's "sharp".
This kid by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Lost Balloon by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Stephanie by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
This kid by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Lost Balloon by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Stephanie by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Upvote
0
All the quantitative measurements show that at 200mm there is nothing to choose between the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS II. At 70mm, the f/2.8 is nigh perfect sharpness at the centre whereas the f/4 is very good/excellent. On Sunday, I AFMAd my f/4 with the 2xTC III. At 400mm with a real life target (a very exciting brick wall), it wasn't much different from my 100-400 L on the 5DIII. But, everything is relative when discussing sharpness. The f/2.8 300mm II is so much sharper that it blows the the two zooms away - you can rezz it from 300 to 400mm in PS and it is still far, far better at picking out fine details and contrast.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
