Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
70-200f4 vs 70-200f4 is : has anyone compared ?
#1
Has anyone compared the 70-200f4 to the 70-200f4 is ? The tests indicate the is version has a bit more resolution but has anyone noticed if they render differently and if so care to describe or comment ?
#2
I have owned both, and for a while simultaneously, just to make sure it was as good as promised.



Rendering is about the same, maybe the IS version is slightly busier in the background; IOW, I reckon bokeh with the non-IS version is slightly better. Close (actually very close) to MFD the non-IS version is a little sharper, especially at the long end. The IS on the IS version is phenomenal. I could handhold it without any problems down to 1/16s and occasionally even slower speeds, at 200 mm on APS-C - that's 4 1/3 stops of IS and sometimes more, and without IS I do need 1/320s or faster.... The IS version at (short) middle to long distance is definitely sharper than the non-IS version.



When used for macro purposes, e.g., with extension tubes, the non-IS version performs better from my experience. Shots with the IS version lacked a bit of bite, if you'd ask me. I know it isn't a macro lens, but I'll use any lens for (semi)macro work, as that is something I like doing <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />. I guess this is in a way an extension of it getting just a tad softer at MFD in the long reaches.



I used the 70-200 a lot in the past, for anything from portraits to sports to landscapes, etc. Both versions are great for this, but the IS version wins because of the IS. I've done a lot of indoors shooting with the IS version, handheld, often candid portraits, which I could not have done with the non-IS version - I always needed a flash in that case.



I said in the past, because I have moved to an almost prime only set-up these days, which I find more satisfying than using zooms, especially as I used my zooms as varifocal primes anyway, IOW, a prime with framing options. I sold the non-IS about a year after obtaining the IS version, and the IS version I sold a few months after obtaining the 135L. I already had an extender 1.4X, and the combo, 135L either with or without extender, I preferred (and prefer) over the zoom. Furthermore, the 135L is great close to MFD, and coupled to a few extension tubes, it still is. IMO, it even beats the 100 macro <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />.



Would I recommend the 70-200 F/4 IS? Yes, wholeheartedly. Great lens, and worth the money. However, that is also true for the non-IS version. Which one you should get is essentially a budget thing, and the requirement for IS. To me, that would be a non-issue, I'd go for the IS one, as I did in the end <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Anyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
Thanks wim. The reason I asked was not with regards to purchasing; but rather I read an article that made comments to the older lens having much better rendering. It was in context to how lenses developed for digital sensors lacked smooth colour transition.
#4
[quote name='you2' date='11 July 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1278848795' post='956']

Thanks wim. The reason I asked was not with regards to purchasing; but rather I read an article that made comments to the older lens having much better rendering. It was in context to how lenses developed for digital sensors lacked smooth colour transition.

[/quote]

Well, as far as I can/could see, they were very similar in that regard, and actually the F/4 IS maybe slightly better, except occasionally in background bokeh.



Do note that zooms are typically worse in these aspects than primes, and they always have been. It is inherent to the more complicated do-it-all design principles that have to be used, and the myriad of optical elements having to work together in this do-it-all concept.



As to smooth colour transitions in digital: I doubt this very much. I think people are confusing rendering in digital with rendering on film. Film has an innate thickness due to the emulsion being approximately 0.2 mm thick, which essentially means that the OOF to in-focus transition plays itself out over a much longer distance than is the case with digital, as sensors essentially have a thickness of zero. You need to add this 0.2 mm thickness to either end of the CoC, which means that you get an additional 60 % or so of area with a transitional effect compared to digital. Furthermore, the sharpness curve of digital is much steeper, giving further rise to this effect.



It is one of the reasons why I am an advocate of higher MP cameras. Essentially what this does is cause the transition to be much smoother, as there are more pixels to capture the gradations in a relatively sharply defined edge, hence making the transition much smoother. Furthermore, there is a better interaction with high MP sensors between sensor resolution, AA-filter, and lens resolution, making transitions much more smoothly than with lower MP sensors, where high and low MP must be regarded in relation to sensor size.. From my personal observations you start definitely noticing this effect at about 12 - 15 MP on APS-C, and 17 - 20 MP on FF.



If I look at lenses like the 50L, 24L and TS-E 17 and TS-E 24, I clearly see lenses designed for the digital age with very, very smooth colour transitions, so I don't see how this could actually be a fact unless somebody can underpin such observations with more or less scientifically obtained measurements.



One interesting development, however, seems to be the development of multi-aspherical element designs, possibly caused by the demand for incredibly sharp lenses over the whole image area at almost any aperture. These designs seem to show an interesting phenomenon, namely sharpness distributed in a wavefront almost, with more or less distinct areas of more sharpness at different distances from the optical axis. This seems especially the case with some of the newest zoom designs, and the effect thus created also seems to cause an interesting distribution pattern of smooth and less smooth colour transitions.



Other than that, older lenses often suffered more, or more severely, from optical faults, which cause essentially softness in colour transitions as well, obviously. From that POV it really is due to better design techniques than were possible, e.g., 30 years ago, for affordable lenses that is. Several new lenses that were designed not all that long ago, get close to apo-designs, for example, even if not listed as such. This means less spherical aberrations for example, which is one of the main optical defects to cause softness/blurriness, and if you like, good colour transitions (and good bokeh). However, this is both true for analog and digital. And this is also one of the reasons why several companies now design spherical aberrations into their optics, both for good bokeh in front of the DoF plane as behind it. What people generally perceive as good, smooth bokeh, also creates beautiful colour transitions... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



Other than that, it is very, very easy to look at 100% or beyond with digital, which wasn't so easy with film, and the sharpness of sensors reveal really all, making it possible to really zoom in on any fault, whether percieved or real.



However, look at a print, from a proper viewing distance, and you may get a different picture (pun intended). Anything from a 6 MP APS-C camera for personal use, and anything from 12 MP, APS-C or FF, for professional use actually easily looks as good, if not better, than something shot on and printed from a 135 film-based colour negative. That is my personal experience, BTW, so YMMV.



HTH, kind regards, WIm
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#5
Ok. Thanks. I wish I had a understanding of what give zeiss the colour seperation which seems unique to their lenses.
#6
[quote name='you2' date='11 July 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1278882198' post='962']

Ok. Thanks. I wish I had a understanding of what give zeiss the colour seperation which seems unique to their lenses.

[/quote]

Zeiss are famous for their microcontrast, i.e., good separation at the high frequencies in MTF curves. The question really rises how unique this is, because not all of their lenses are as good at this as some of their others. The 35 F/2, 50 F/2 and 100 F/2 specifically are renowned for this. Besides, this isn't just unique to Zeiss lenses. Try 24L, 50L and 135L, f.e.



Do note that with zoom lenses this is not as common.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#7
[quote name='you2' date='11 July 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1278848795' post='956']

Thanks wim. The reason I asked was not with regards to purchasing; but rather I read an article that made comments to the older lens having much better rendering. It was in context to how lenses developed for digital sensors lacked smooth colour transition.

[/quote]



I currently have both versions of that lens and have tested them rigorously against each other using a rigid tripod, MLU and remote release at a range of FLs from f4 through to f16. As regards sharpness, there's not much between them from 70-110mm; then the IS version starts to pull away being slightly sharper at 150mm and noticeably sharper at 180-200mm. That's not to say the non-IS is bad - just that the IS version is better as regards sharpness. However, when it comes to colour and microcontrast, the non-IS version is better IMHO. It has rich 'creamy' colours rather like my 17-40L; the IS version is slightly 'grittier' with a slightly busier bokeh. I have continued to use and compare both versions to decide which one to keep as I can't justify both. The deal-maker for me is the IS; it really is superb and makes the newer lens much more versatile, especially in lower light so I'll shortly eBay the non-IS lens.



Michael
#8
Thanks Michael -- how noticable is the grittier; i.e could you post two similar pictures ? Your comments are very similar the ones I recalled reading elsewhere though I do not remember the exact details nor site.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)