Sharpness of the Canon 70-200 4L

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I have been reading a lot about the Canon 70-200 4L, 2.8L and the Sigma 70-200 2.8L and trying to decide which one of these to purchase.

One comment that is often made is that the 4L lense is "sharper" than the 2.8's refered to above. Does this mean the quality of the image will be more detailed when shooting f4 through f8 etc when you compare these lenses side by side?

Also when this forum refers to how sharp a lense is, does that have anything to do with how "soft" an image may appear? eg. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is often described as "softer" than the canon 70-280 2.8L when shooting wide open.

-- David O'Neill (dontiki@hotmail.com), March 07, 2001

Answers

David, one month ago I purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0 USM "L" zoom lens. I do not know about the Sigma so I can only tell you about the Canon. I just returned from the Venice Carival in Italy and I am astonished at the Velvia slides that I received back from the Fuji fotolab. They are superb!!!!!! The colors, contrast and sharpness of the lens are fabulous! It is a terrific value in the Canon "L" series. I can not tell you about measurements since I don't lab test photo equipment but I can tell you that the projected slides are simply astonishing!

-- Robert Catasus (rec@accesspro.net), March 21, 2001.

I also recently purchased the 70-200 L. I shot some pics of an International Night at my school (I'm a teacher). Everyone is raving about the pics, saying I could be a pro (yeah, yeah, they're not serious photo people, but the results with this lens are impressive). Sharp and contrasty, even wide open.

FYI, "sharpness" and "softness" are generally used as opposites when describing lens performance. Sharp lenses give better resolution of detail, while softer lens give less (similar to the images being a little out of focus, so it's more difficult to discern details).

-- Todd Garlow (toddgarlow@hotmail.com), March 26, 2001.


I owns this lens. It a great lens for its value and weight. Putting on a 2X with it, its still wonderful, better than my 75-300nonUSM at 300mm!

Shaprer than 2.8 could be due the lens design "...As opposed to the f/2.8L version, which utilizes four UD elements, the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM has one fluorite lens and two UD lenses to suppress secondary spectrum, which often causes decreased image quality in telephoto lenses, to an absolute minimum. For the record, one fluorite lens is equivalent to two elements of UD, which means the optical quality of the f/4 zoom, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the f/2.8 version..." Extracted from http://www.camera.canon.com.my/photography/nut/99issue/nuts36/index.ht m

the thing i;ve noticed about "L" lens is that, with naked eyes, its sharp. But on a closer look with a loupe, it slightly soft on prints. Lots of Pros who does weddings in Singapore here likes this effect. And they commented that nikons are too sharp!

rgds, Lee Kong Leng Http://www.geocities.com/kongleng77/index.html

"...I believe your most attractive features are your heart and soul I believe that family is worth more than money or gold..." -Affirmation, -Savage Garden

-- Lee KongLeng (rlee77@singnet.com.sg), April 02, 2001.


Another question for those of you who have the 70-200 f/4 L. I'm thinking about getting this lens, with one application being using it for closeup photography with a 2-element diopter. With the 67mm filter diameter, none of the Canon or Nikon ones directly fit. I could use a 67-72 step-up ring with the Canon 72mm 500D, but then the hood won't fit and the diopter is offset a little farther from the front element of the lens than usual. Has anyone tried this and what did you think of the results? Thanks.

-- Kurt Olender (kurtolender@netscape.net), April 05, 2001.

Kurt,

I use this lens for close-up work in exactly the configuration you just pointed out. The problem with the hood not fitting is easily solved with a threaded screw-on type hood for the step down ring. I'll email an image to show you what type quality you can expect.

Personally, I am more than pleased with this setup. I've used macro lenses and unless you are super critical(under a large magnifying lupe) you will not see the difference.

Also, because it's a zoom you have more choices when zooming in and out at close focusing distances.

I've given up on most primes since I like the versatility of zooms.

J.R.

-- J.R. Fernandez (westboundimages@hotmail.com), May 04, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ