![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerLast Christmas I took advantage of a deal that local photo dealer and hire centre Calumet were doing for cheap hire to try out one of Canon's nicer high-end zoom lenses (the L-series 70-300 f/4-5.6. This year Calumet repeated the offer, although on slightly different terms; rather than giving 75% off any hire over the holiday period, they allowed a 14-day hire from 22nd December to 5th January at what would normally be the rate for 2 days. I decided to take advantage of this to try out what's often thought of as Canon's flagship L-series lens: the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.
By 'flagship' I don't mean that it's the most expensive (not by a long way!) or the 'fastest' in terms of widest aperture, or has the longest zoom range or maximum focal length. But for a short-to-medium telephoto zoom it has a wide maximum aperture of f/2.8, which significantly (and unlike most cheaper zoom lenses) is constant throughout the zoom range. Like all L-series lenses it is robustly built, and is widely regarded has having extremely good image quality. Also, at about £1,700, while expensive it is not out of the reach of most professional (or indeed a fair few amateur) photographers. As a result it's become a widely-used lens for serious photographers - our wedding photographer had one - and a lens a lot of more casual Canon dSLR owners aspire to, or at least dream of.
It's certainly a bit of a beast. When I picked it up it came with its own semi-rigid zipped bag, and the lens body itself is made of metal rather than plastic. It feels very solid and well-engineered. To have an f/2.8 aperture at the 200mm end of its zoom range it needs a large diameter, and combined with its pale cream colour it certainly looks conspicuous on the front of your camera. indeed, on one occasion when I was out taking some test pictures I was approached by some cyclists who turned out to be camera geeks and asked about it. This isn't a lens for discreet snapping.
Based on several trips out with it I certainly agree that the image quality is superb. To show just how sharp it is, here's a comparison of a view frrm our flat of a nearby bit of architecture both via the 2.8L on the left and my usual zoom (Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS) on the right. These are 100% crops, although I didn't quite get the two lenses at exactly the same focal length so the scale isn't quite the same; both are at f/8 though, so ought to be around their best.
Ow. I'm generally happy with my existing zoom but, especially with the higher resolution on the Canon 70D I got last year to replace my 2007-vintage 400D, the better quality of the 2.8L really shows up.
Here are some more pics:
[Pics: wildfowl at Edgbaston Reservoir]
The wide aperture makes for very nice selective focus:
[Pics: seagulls lined up on railing, showing near and far focus with shallow depth of field]
Another nice feature of the 2.8L is the really, really fast focus. With my current lens you half-push the shutter button and it goes whirr and focusses. With the 2.8L it just clicks into focus almost instantaneously. Enable auto-tracking focus on the camera and it happily keeps moving targets in focus, even with quite a bit of background clutter.
[Pics: seagulls in flight, nicely in focus]
The 2.8L's good optical design also shows up in how well it copes with difficult situations such as shooting into glare. I had the lens hood on but there were a lot of reflections in this scene which it still copes with without excessive flare or ghosting.
[Pic: ducks swimming into sun with lots of reflected glare on the water]
I'd also rented Canon's 2x teleconverter. Teleconverters often have a bad reputation for degrading image quality, but this one is supposed to be matched to Canon's lenses and the 2.8L in particular. I found there was a visible effect on image quality, and of course it converts the lens into a 140-400 f/5.6, but if you really need the reach it is useful. Here are shots without the TC, and with:
[Pic: house across water, lens at 200mm focal length]
[Pic: same house, lens with TC at 400mm focal length]
I'd guess this cormorant was a good 150m away.
[Pic: cormorant drying its wings, perched on sailing bouy]
A trip to Birmingham Nature Centre on a freezing morning provided more photo opportunities, such as these Sitatunga antelopes. (Yes, that's the stag's condensed breath in the last pic.)
[Pics: Sitatunga antelopes in the early morning light]
This emperor tamarin was in a dimly-lit enclosure. A combination of an f/2.8 lens, image stabilisation and a camera that can happily shoot at ISO 3200 meant I could get pictures like this without flash:
[Pic: emperor tamarin looking pensive]
Birmingham Nature Centre is famous for having a red panda escape a few years ago. This one stayed firmly up a tree and looked a bit unsure about being photographed.
[Pic: red panda sitting in fork of tree branches]
One downside of the wide aperture is that the very shallow depth of field can make it hard to keep all of your subject in focus. This crane was fine as long as it was side on, but when it turned towards me the end of its bill wasn't in focus if its eye was:
[Pic: crane looking at camera, eye in focus, tip of bill slightly blurred]
By sheer chance I pressed the shutter button on this close-up just as the crane blinked its nictitating membrane.
[Pic: Crane, caught in action of blinking its inner eyelid]
Even on dull, dreary days, the wide aperture allowed interesting focus options such as for this rather cold-looking coot at Cannon Hill Park:
[Pic: Coot standing on icy pond, other birds out of focus in background]
I was sorry to hand the lens back, but would I really want to splash out the best part of £2K on one? It is big and bulky - with it attached, I could not get my camera into my smaller camera bag, even after removing the internal dividers. It's not light, either, and I can imagine that after a long photo session even a large person like me could tire of holding it. As I said, it's also conspicuous, and I'd be very mindful of how much it cost. But I can see why people for whom photography is a job, or a hobby serious enough that they want the best tools, so often use one of these.
A common alternative L-series lens has long been the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. Not as fast in terms of aperture, but rather longer in focal length, it had been on the market for about 16 years and everyone has expecting a replacement for the best part of a decade. Canon has just launched the Mk 2 version, and as I handed the 2.8: back I asked when Calumet was likely to get one for rental. "Oh, we just have - in fact, it came back today. Do you want to have a look before we send it back to the depot?" So I had a quick play (no photos - the shop stuck it on a display Canon dSLR body for me) - also big and heavy, but very nice build feel and based on looking through it the image quality ought to be excellent. I may well end up hiring that for a weekend next time I go to an airshow. In the mean time I'm now sorely tempted by the 2.8L's smaller brother, the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is supposed to have almost the same quality for the sacrifice of only one f-stop in speed, and is about half the weight and price....
By 'flagship' I don't mean that it's the most expensive (not by a long way!) or the 'fastest' in terms of widest aperture, or has the longest zoom range or maximum focal length. But for a short-to-medium telephoto zoom it has a wide maximum aperture of f/2.8, which significantly (and unlike most cheaper zoom lenses) is constant throughout the zoom range. Like all L-series lenses it is robustly built, and is widely regarded has having extremely good image quality. Also, at about £1,700, while expensive it is not out of the reach of most professional (or indeed a fair few amateur) photographers. As a result it's become a widely-used lens for serious photographers - our wedding photographer had one - and a lens a lot of more casual Canon dSLR owners aspire to, or at least dream of.
It's certainly a bit of a beast. When I picked it up it came with its own semi-rigid zipped bag, and the lens body itself is made of metal rather than plastic. It feels very solid and well-engineered. To have an f/2.8 aperture at the 200mm end of its zoom range it needs a large diameter, and combined with its pale cream colour it certainly looks conspicuous on the front of your camera. indeed, on one occasion when I was out taking some test pictures I was approached by some cyclists who turned out to be camera geeks and asked about it. This isn't a lens for discreet snapping.
Based on several trips out with it I certainly agree that the image quality is superb. To show just how sharp it is, here's a comparison of a view frrm our flat of a nearby bit of architecture both via the 2.8L on the left and my usual zoom (Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS) on the right. These are 100% crops, although I didn't quite get the two lenses at exactly the same focal length so the scale isn't quite the same; both are at f/8 though, so ought to be around their best.
Ow. I'm generally happy with my existing zoom but, especially with the higher resolution on the Canon 70D I got last year to replace my 2007-vintage 400D, the better quality of the 2.8L really shows up.
Here are some more pics:
[Pics: wildfowl at Edgbaston Reservoir]
The wide aperture makes for very nice selective focus:
[Pics: seagulls lined up on railing, showing near and far focus with shallow depth of field]
Another nice feature of the 2.8L is the really, really fast focus. With my current lens you half-push the shutter button and it goes whirr and focusses. With the 2.8L it just clicks into focus almost instantaneously. Enable auto-tracking focus on the camera and it happily keeps moving targets in focus, even with quite a bit of background clutter.
[Pics: seagulls in flight, nicely in focus]
The 2.8L's good optical design also shows up in how well it copes with difficult situations such as shooting into glare. I had the lens hood on but there were a lot of reflections in this scene which it still copes with without excessive flare or ghosting.
[Pic: ducks swimming into sun with lots of reflected glare on the water]
I'd also rented Canon's 2x teleconverter. Teleconverters often have a bad reputation for degrading image quality, but this one is supposed to be matched to Canon's lenses and the 2.8L in particular. I found there was a visible effect on image quality, and of course it converts the lens into a 140-400 f/5.6, but if you really need the reach it is useful. Here are shots without the TC, and with:
[Pic: house across water, lens at 200mm focal length]
[Pic: same house, lens with TC at 400mm focal length]
I'd guess this cormorant was a good 150m away.
[Pic: cormorant drying its wings, perched on sailing bouy]
A trip to Birmingham Nature Centre on a freezing morning provided more photo opportunities, such as these Sitatunga antelopes. (Yes, that's the stag's condensed breath in the last pic.)
[Pics: Sitatunga antelopes in the early morning light]
This emperor tamarin was in a dimly-lit enclosure. A combination of an f/2.8 lens, image stabilisation and a camera that can happily shoot at ISO 3200 meant I could get pictures like this without flash:
[Pic: emperor tamarin looking pensive]
Birmingham Nature Centre is famous for having a red panda escape a few years ago. This one stayed firmly up a tree and looked a bit unsure about being photographed.
[Pic: red panda sitting in fork of tree branches]
One downside of the wide aperture is that the very shallow depth of field can make it hard to keep all of your subject in focus. This crane was fine as long as it was side on, but when it turned towards me the end of its bill wasn't in focus if its eye was:
[Pic: crane looking at camera, eye in focus, tip of bill slightly blurred]
By sheer chance I pressed the shutter button on this close-up just as the crane blinked its nictitating membrane.
[Pic: Crane, caught in action of blinking its inner eyelid]
Even on dull, dreary days, the wide aperture allowed interesting focus options such as for this rather cold-looking coot at Cannon Hill Park:
[Pic: Coot standing on icy pond, other birds out of focus in background]
I was sorry to hand the lens back, but would I really want to splash out the best part of £2K on one? It is big and bulky - with it attached, I could not get my camera into my smaller camera bag, even after removing the internal dividers. It's not light, either, and I can imagine that after a long photo session even a large person like me could tire of holding it. As I said, it's also conspicuous, and I'd be very mindful of how much it cost. But I can see why people for whom photography is a job, or a hobby serious enough that they want the best tools, so often use one of these.
A common alternative L-series lens has long been the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. Not as fast in terms of aperture, but rather longer in focal length, it had been on the market for about 16 years and everyone has expecting a replacement for the best part of a decade. Canon has just launched the Mk 2 version, and as I handed the 2.8: back I asked when Calumet was likely to get one for rental. "Oh, we just have - in fact, it came back today. Do you want to have a look before we send it back to the depot?" So I had a quick play (no photos - the shop stuck it on a display Canon dSLR body for me) - also big and heavy, but very nice build feel and based on looking through it the image quality ought to be excellent. I may well end up hiring that for a weekend next time I go to an airshow. In the mean time I'm now sorely tempted by the 2.8L's smaller brother, the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is supposed to have almost the same quality for the sacrifice of only one f-stop in speed, and is about half the weight and price....
no subject
Date: 2015-01-10 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-14 03:16 pm (UTC)If we manage to meet up IRL in the next few weeks, I'll bring the f4L so you can try it out. We have the same camera body (70D), I think. :)
no subject
Date: 2015-01-14 03:52 pm (UTC)We'd love to meet up, and not just so I can drool at your new lens - you have other new additions to admire! Is your work email still good for getting in touch while you're on leave?
no subject
Date: 2015-01-26 02:00 pm (UTC)The best e-mail for getting in touch with me is my gmail account. User name is biexponential. Are you and S ever free for lunch during the week? That's the easiest time for me to get to Birmingham, as I can travel in to University with the bloke and then hop from there to New Street.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-26 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-10 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 09:31 pm (UTC)