Sharp Lenses

There has been a lot of discussion about which lenses are sharp and how much difference there really is. The best way to check is to view your image at 100% and pixel peep. The following is from the sharpest zoom Canon currently makes the 70-200 f4L IS. You can see from the 100% blow up how good this lens is. I've owned all the 70-200 L's, the 100-400, the 24-105 f4L, the 17-40, and the 24-70 f2.8 and this one is just simply a cut above with prime like sharpness.

wow...nice and sharp. But then funny stuff like that tends to happen when you're using a pro body and "pro" lens set to f8 ;)

I've heard you raving about that f4L lens of yours before. Is it really that much better than the f2.8L? I mean, pixel peeping might show a difference, but is there enough difference between the two to the point where you can actually see a difference if that shot was printed in a mag, or resized down to 800x533?

I'm getting ready to buy a 70-200 canon lens! Is the F2.8l worth $500-$600 more, or should i save my money and get the f4L?

"but is there enough difference between the two to the point where you can actually see a difference if that shot was printed in a mag, or resized down to 800x533?"

Nope, the f2.8 is a great lens and the difference won't show up in mag prints or at web sizes like that.

Ryan B. - short of portraits (bokeh) what do most people really need f2.8. for? If someone tells me they're constantly shooting at ISO3200 wide open I'd say the f2.8 is a good investment, if not why spend the extra money.

but my main point with the above was not to diss on the f2.8Ls but mainly to point out the benefits of a quality lens be it an L or good Nikon lens, given all the discussion recently about whether to spend money on glass or not (a concept I know you've always agreed to Scott.)

for us pixel peepers the f4L IS is just amazing, I've compared shots to both the 100 macro and and 85f1.8 and this lens is every bit as good. (and it's just a sharp at f4 as at f8).

As sensors get more and more pixels the need for quality glass is just going to increase. I see people turning up their moses at a 6 or 8 MP body, claiming they need 12+mp's and then throwing a cheap lens on it which only magnifies the defects in the cheap lens for all to see.

Plus I'm kinda bored this weekend so I thought I'd throw all the above up as it always makes for lively discussion.

If the f/4 IS is any better than the non IS I don't see it. I believe there can be a difference from one copy to the next though.

Were you shooting at f/8 just to see how sharp you could get it ?

I had the shutter locked for that particular shot and a little more ISO then I probably needed. I like it to average around f5.6 normally in TV mode to get a little better background blur. Zoomed in at f4 too much and you risk getting parts of the rider outside DOF. It would have been just as sharp at f4 anyway though.

Next time I see you let's put both of our f4's on one body and shoot a couple for true comparisons. I've previously owned two 70-200 f4's, one had front focusing problems but the other was OK, neither seemed as good as this lens but I can't do any exact comparisons because I don't own them anymore. BTW It's was not my purpose to talk people into selling their 70-200Ls here for this version with the above post mainly just to show how sharp L lenses are.

Yeah I know. You have the gearhead sickness.

BTW, If you ever sell your 400mm I might be interested.

Speaking of Canon and focusing problems, hows that 1d3 treating ya?

When Canon sends me the shipping docs I'll send mine in for the sub mirror replacement although I can't say I've really noticed a problem but I don't own any of the fast super teles and rarely shoot in 80 degree plus weather.

I'm pretty happy with it overall, my favorite features are the battery system, microfocus adj., 14 bit color and the lighter weight over the old 1D.