Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by ( * )( * ), Sep 5, 2004.
Lens is in perfect condition. Comes with hood, tripod collar, and carrying bag.
Now thats a real bargain. Too bad I already have one..
Any reason why you're selling such an incredible lens?
I don't find myself using it enough to justify keeping it. I've already got 3 primes that cover 85-135 range for my uses and they are all sharper than the 70-200 (85 1.8, 100 Macro, 135L). Having the zoom range is nice, but it just can't beat the primes in sharpness. I'm looking to get a 35 1.4 and 200 2.8 so I need to sell it. I must admit, bokeh and color are just awesome on this lens.
This is going to be my next lens purchase but I don't have the cash.
I might have a friend thats interested. I'll let you know by tuesday.
Still have it?
Might have someone look at it tomorrow. I'll let you know.
Did they pick it up? PM me or something
Yep, sold it on Monday for $1300. I might be able to get my hands on another one in Jan 05. I'll let you know.
i'm about to get a job
that is my next lens purchase ; ;
Lens isn't worth it. It's nice to have the zoom, but my non L primes beat it in sharpness. The color and contrast were outstanding though.
The F/2.8 has been tested to be the 2nd sharpest lens behind the 300mm F/2.8 in the whole canon system
Link to tests?
naaaah.. primes > zooms..
Its a great lens if you're going to be using the long end a lot (primarily in the 90+ - 200 range) but if you don't, it doesn't make much sense to pick up a 13-1500 dollar lens.
oh.. and you're wrong
from photodo (link)
Grade: 4.135mm/AF Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM
Grade: 4.235mm/AF Canon EF 80-200/2,8 L
Grade: 4.435mm/MF Canon FD 50/1,8
Grade: 4.435mm/AF Canon EF 400/2,8L II
Grade: 4.435mm/AF Canon EF 400/2,8 L IS USM
Grade: 4.835mm/AF Canon EF 200/1,8L USM
Grade: 4.535mm/AF Canon EF 135/2L USM
Grade: 4.435mm/AF Canon EF 50/1,4 USM
Grade: 4.235mm/AF Canon EF 50/1,8 II
Grade: 4.435mm/AF Canon EF 50/2,5 Macro
Grade: 4.635mm/AF Canon EF 85/1,2L USM
Grade: 4.135mm/AF Canon EF 85/1,8 USM
Grade: 4.335mm/AF Canon EF 300/4L USM
Grade: 4.235mm/AF Sigma AF 90/2,8 Makro
Grade: 4.235mm/AF Sigma AF 50/2,8 EX Macro
Grade: 4.135mm/AF Sigma AF 105/2,8 EX Macro
Grade: 4.235mm/MF Tamron SP 90/2,5 macro
Grade: 4.635mm/MF Tokina AT-X 90/2,5 macro
Um, yeah, if you're gonna say the piece of crap plastic 50mm f/1.8II is better than the 70-200 you need to have your head examined. Or that the older version is better or the 400 DO. That is the most flawed test I've seen.
Any test can have variations, who'se to say that one is right?
"The grade is based on the average weighted MTF for the lens. No other variables, such as distortion, flare, or ghosting are taken into account. We chose 0,88 for a grade of 4,8 to make sure that we will never hit the "roof" (>5). "
In most cases primes are superior to zooms, but not in this particular case.
If you're looking at the 100-400 versus the 400 F/5.6, that the 400 would be better than the 100-400. But if you compare the 70-200 versus a 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, and 200mm, there isn't going to be enough difference to justify the price difference of adding all those primes and not having as much control.
Thanks. This proves that you know nothing about cameras. Yes, the 50mm f/1.8 II is sharper than the 70-200. Have you ever tried it? The mount in the back is plastic, but the lens elements are all glass. Is the bokeh better than the 70-200? No because it has less diaphragm blades, but is it sharper? YES. Its a lot sharper.
So I guess the 200mm f/1.8 (Canon's sharpest glass) isn't sharper than the 70-200? You're telling me Canon's 85mm 1.2L, 1.8L, Canon's 135mm f/2 isn't sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8?
Try some out and say that again. You're trippin.
Come on, link us to some tests. I linked you to some. Most photographers will agree that Photodo is an accurate gauge of lenses. For the most part, the ratings are right on the money. And yeah, there can always be variations, but find me 10 people that say the 70-200mm is sharper than the 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 200mm f/1.8, or even Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 Macro. Good luck.
So now you retract your statement that the 70-200 is Canon's 2nd sharpest piece of glass.
no, not at all. If you wanted all primes, you'd pay 5 times the price. That was my point.
According to the test I read that looked at the whole lens, the 70-200 out preformed all but the 300 F/2.8
I own both primes and zoom's, including the 50, 20 and soon to be 400. I also have the 70-200, and other older zooms the 28-135 and 75-300, both IS. The 70-200 is by far sharper than the 50 or 20.
If you knew anything, you'd know that Canon no longer produces the 200 F/1.8.
You'll have to come up with something better than that hack site to put down the 70-200.
You're basing generalities of primes vs zooms without ever trying them out. I have, I own them and have daily access to all others.
Yes, they don't make the 200 f/1.8 anymore, but its sharper than both the 300mm and 70-200. HACK SITE?
ROFL. www.photodo.com hack site? You know nothing. The 20mm f/2.8 SUCKS. So shows how much you know. Maybe you have a bad copy of the 50mm f/1.8 because mine blows the 70-200 f/2.8L out of the water.
blah blah blah blah.. try any of the primes I listed. I've personally tried some of them and they're sharp as hell. Look at the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. People complain that its TOO sharp.
I'm not saying the 70-200mm f/2.8L isn't sharp. But its ridculous that you're saying its the 2nd sharpest Canon lens.
I dunno, I've owned the 70-200 IS and sold it due to the fact that it couldn't outperform my primes.
The 3 primes = $1,619.79 and the 70-200 IS = $1,599.95. Not a huge difference.
Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 is a fine piece of glass, but I can't justify keeping it when it can't compare to the primes wide open. Sure it focuses fast and has great color/contrast and IS, but for my uses, I'm sticking with primes.
Can you post the link to the test you read?
don't have the link. I thought it was listed on luminance landscapes, but couldn'd find it.
Which primes did you use? If the 200 F/1.8 was considered, since its the "sharpest" lens ever, is $7000 right there. If you just looking at the smaller ones, than maybe so.
What are you doing that you can justify spending time switching out lenses and carrying them all? Plus exsposing the sensor (if you're digital) to that much more dust every time you want to change perspective.
Are you kidding? I see 200 f/1.8s go for 3000-4200 on fredmiranda's buy and sell all the time... Yes, I agree with you that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is a fine piece of glass, and that if you're looking to cover that range, its probably the best deal you can get. And its quality in the entire range..
BUT YOU SAID that it was the sharpest Canon glass evAr (or well, the second) and all I am saying is that you are wrong. There are plenty of lenses that are sharper than the 70-200. (but that doesn't mean the 70-200 is soft)
And about the dust. Sensors can be cleaned.