angry hampster
Diamond Member
Identical to my setup..and I wouldn't trade it for any other. <2 my 24-70+5D.
not loving the 24-70 f/2.8... bringing too many soft results... I've noticed that when I focus on objects > than 10 feet, it seems to fall apart. But then, I am pushing the lens with a 5D mark 2 sensor... 21mp needs a very high lens resolution in order to get all those pixels sharp!
I have used a few and also haven't been that impressed re: sharpness. It needs an update
not loving the 24-70 f/2.8... bringing too many soft results... I've noticed that when I focus on objects > than 10 feet, it seems to fall apart. But then, I am pushing the lens with a 5D mark 2 sensor... 21mp needs a very high lens resolution in order to get all those pixels sharp!
unfortunately, it'll probably get the same kind of update the 70-200 got, an extra $600, heh. more if they add IS.... at least it'll kick ass if it does.
I hope it does. The improvement in sharpness on the 70-200 was quite impressive (shame about the extra cost though).
Got no problem with mine...always been sharp but hopefully, I'll be able to get a mark II to verify what you said.
They have updated their 100mm macro with IS so it's next in line but prepare to pay the extra $$.
Everybody has a different definition of sharpness.The older 70-200 2.8 is sharp but when I tested it I found the 70-200 F4 IS slightly sharper. The 70-200 2.8L II is sharper again (it was just reviewed on DPreview and there are plenty of forum posts). Some people are even getting decent results with a 2xTC.
Everybody has a different definition of sharpness.
When I tested a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS about a year ago, I didn't find it very sharp wide-open.
True, and I wonder if Canon refines their processes over time. For example, the 17-40L has been in production since 2003, and Canon has made a lot of advances in lens technology over that time. I wonder if a 2003 17-40L is any less sharp than a 2009 17-40L.There also seems to be wide sample variation among some lenses.
True, and I wonder if Canon refines their processes over time. For example, the 17-40L has been in production since 2003, and Canon has made a lot of advances in lens technology over that time. I wonder if a 2003 17-40L is any less sharp than a 2009 17-40L.
Also, sample variation seems to affect zoom lenses more than fixed focal length (prime) lenses.
Yeah. I am now thinking of getting the 100-400L since the IQ issues seem to be in the past. Wouldn't have considered that a few years ago.I am sure this is the case with some lenses. At the least, stealth changes are made to improve quality. Early copies of the 100-400L were often bad but recent copies have been uniformly better.
I am sure this is the case with some lenses. At the least, stealth changes are made to improve quality. Early copies of the 100-400L were often bad but recent copies have been uniformly better.