Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS vs Non IS tested

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

12/02/2006 06:50:44 PM · #1

This is a common question of which one to get. I got sick of folks pontificating without any pics so I finally got a very new IS vesion from a buddy and tested it against my non IS version. I thought looking at photozone.de's reviews of these lenses that the IS version would have softer corners wide open at the longer focal lengths.

The tests were done with no UV filters, hoods placed, and shutter speeds fast enough to prevent camera shake.

Well, pixel peeping 100% crops, the non IS maybe a touch shapre at 100mm and 135mm wide open, but the difference is trivial and will disappear with processing as I shot RAW and converted to JPEG in DPP with neutral picture style. However, the biggest difference was in contrast. The IS version had a lot more of it, probably uncorrectable in processing to match the non IS version.

Take a look here.
Comments are welcome.
//tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2158458
__________________

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

12/02/2006 09:35:48 PM · #2

Interesting. I wonder how the flare resistance and characteristics compare between the two? Or the bokeh?

I like the 70-200 range so I'm going to be saving up for the IS when I can. Since it's a newer design, it makes sense that it would have better optics even with 6 (I think) more elements.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/02/2006 10:49:20 PM · #3

look at the last two images, bokeh is about the same. The flare test I have to redo as there was a slight shift in position with the shots. But for now, the IS version seems to have more flare, I'll redo the test tomorrow though.

I wouldn't necessarily let a few years mean that it's a better lens. The non IS seems to be a touch sharper in the corners, but just a touch.

Message edited by author 2006-12-02 22:50:20.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

12/02/2006 11:24:35 PM · #4

No offense but you shot these test shots handheld and expect to get an accurate determination of the sharpness of each lense? It doesn't matter what shutter speed you use, motion is motion and will be reflected in the images. You'd be better off tacking a piece of newspaper to a wall and setting the camera on a desk if you are lacking a tripod.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6400

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

12/02/2006 11:28:51 PM · #5

Ditto to what routerguy666 said.

There is no easy way to compare these two lenses anyway. The method you chose is not quite 'scientific' enough to draw any conclusions from...

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

12/02/2006 11:29:55 PM · #6

True, a tripod is needed for exact framing and sharpness. I was thinking more along the lines of real world bokeh - eg; at minimum focus distance wide-open with OOF specular highlights vs a few meters away from minimum, difference between the 2 when stopped down, subjects at various distances behind the main subject, etc. For flare, how about a shot with the sun in the frame wide open and at about f/5.6, f/11 and f/22? Telephotos don't usually have attractive flare or handle the flare around the sun very well, but I'd be interested to know how the IS and non-IS version differ there.

12/03/2006 01:31:50 AM · #7

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I generally follow the shutter speed rule to ensure that camera shake is not a big factor. If one shot looked real soft, I'd probably chalk it up to camera shake but I don't think they were a factor as speed was high enough. I can generally see if a shot is soft due to camera shake and didn't really see that here. The slowest shutter speed used was 1/350 at 200mm f5.6, even with a crop factor, that should be ok as 200x1.6=320.

Message edited by author 2006-12-03 01:41:06.