DSLRUsers.com

I hope this is the right part of the forum for this question. I recently purchased a Canon 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS zoom to replace my old 55-200mm 4.5-5.6. I took these 2 comparison shots on my 350D, both ISO 100, both zoomed to 200mm, both at f5.6, both within minutes of each other and both on a tripod. There was a gusty breeze, and the tripod is not a heavy duty one but there didn't appear to be any affect on the stability from the conditions. I used a remote cable to fire the shutter.

These images are screen shots of the RAW image opened in Aperture 2, with the loupe set at 200% over a similar part of the lighthouse. I have to admit I was disappointed with the results - I was expecting to see a "slap in the face" major difference from the new lens.

Image 1: 70-200mm 2.8L USM non-IS



Image 2: 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 USM II



I know that the screenshots probably don't present the images well enough to analyse properly but obviously the RAW files are too large to post. I also know that PP can help significantly with RAW images but I still thought that I would see a more dramatic improvement in sharpness with the new 'L' lens.

Can anyone comment on my expectations or perhaps offer a better way of comparing the lens performance?

Thoughts are much appreciated.

Thanks, Muzz

Let me put your fears to rest. Firstly if you really want to do comparisons then it helps if both shots use the same shutter speed to make the test valid but anyway we can work with what you have provided - this is not a valid test for sharpness because you are photographing an object over a large distance on a windy day. The air movement alone will prevent you from achieving an extremely sharp photo. There is a difference between the two with the first being slightly better. Where you will notice the extra quality of a lens like this is in the contrast and whenthe subject is closer or fills the frame so to speak. One other factor that needs to be taken into consideration is the anti aliasing filter which sits on the front of your cmos chip,this means you will have to apply an ever so delicate sharpening routine to your image to really see what the lens chip combo is capable of. Fear not over time you will see the difference, especially with the bokeh!!!

Big V wrote:Let me put your fears to rest.

Nonsense - it's completely broken! I'm looking for a door stop, I'll take it off your hands for the price of postage

Just kidding - hope you have heaps of fun with that beauty!

Yep, I'm sure that salt spray and windy conditions would make this comparison pointless.

Try it again away from the coast and sheltered from the wind.

Big V wrote:Let me put your fears to rest.

And to expand upon what Tony has said, rather than looking at what is under the lupe, have a look at the area just left of and below centre, off-shore, where you see the water breaking over the rocks. Compare the difference in the apparent contrast between these two images. Image one has way more contrast, and you will find that this will carry through into images as greater acuity and contrast, which is what you are expecting.

do this comparison again in an environment where you have more control over the conditions. Gary is very right to point out the differences in contrast in the lower left corner!