Thank you :-)

[vasco]

Hi Roy

just a quick thank you - great idea - have spent lots of time searching for sample images myself - and in fact I found The Motley Pixel whilst searching for samples from the Canon 70 - 200 range of lenses.  I am trying to decide which one is the right one for me the f4 IS looks tempting - and I'm sure that the weight would make it more 'user-friendly' than the 2.8 but... here in Scotland the sun doesn't always (read = often . . .) shine on motorsports events  wgich will probably be No.1 use .....

Gotta be an 'L' though - I got a 24 - 105 a while ago - my first 'L' series and thats it - converted 

Thanks again for the site ~ I'll try to find some sample shots that might be worthy . . . 

Cheers

Stuart

[motleypixel]

Stuart,

Glad you find the site resourceful and I'm glad you posted...my forums are just starting to pickup and I hope to establish a good community here.  As always, I want my main focus to be lens discussions and sample photos.

I think the f/4 version is sharper than the 2.8 and with it's mass about 1/2 of the 2.8 it's a great L lens...I love my f/4 non IS.  Spend the extra $$ for the f/4 IS and it won't let you down...heck even at 5.6 on a very cloudy day at say ISO 400 you should be able to have a fast enough shutter coupled with IS to stop your motorsports action.

Good luck and please do post some shots!

-Roy

[b.d.bop]

Stuart,

I think the f/4 version is sharper than the 2.8 and with it's mass about 1/2 of the 2.8 it's a great L lens
Good luck and please do post some shots!

-Roy

Hi Roy and hi Stuart,
I'm a newbie and just want to say hello - this forum promises to be interesting and informative.  I also think it has great eye appeal.

On to the topic, though...I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and I'm really happy with it. 
Roy, what makes you say the 4L is sharper than the 2.8L?  They're both rated very highly in other forums, the advantage of the 4L of course being less mass/weight, and the advantage of the 2.8L being obvious; but this is the first time I'm hearing that the 4L is sharper.
Is that a personal feeling or are you doing any resolution comparisons between them?

P.S., Stuart - who cares about the light in Scotland when you have all those incredible drams to make you see everything better!  Slainte mhor and throw back a dram of Ardbeg for me!

[motleypixel]

Hello b.d.bop and welcome to "another photography forum" 

I'm stuck in the middle of a remodel of the kitchen; however, I will post a link to tests between the 2.8 and 4 versions...frankly they are really darn near neck/neck regarding sharpness

Any way, welcome again!

-Roy

[motleypixel]

Mark,

I've been meaning to dig up some discussion of sharpness between the 70-300 f/4 and f/2.8...I did run across this comment from dpreview:

Re: 70-200mm choice NEW
Tacksharp - 14 hours ago
The f/4 IS version is breathtakingly sharp all the way out to 200mm and wide open. It will occasionally "hunt" for AF, though, in low light. But, I've read that the f/2.8 version is softer at the 200mm limit, which I couldn't bear, since that's where I spend most of my time (at 200mm). The f/4 IS is unbelievably small and light. I know why a tripod collar is not provided--it doesn't need one! It's just that light. In a perfect world, Canon would come out with a modernized update to the f/2.8 IS version that is as sharp across the board as the f/4 IS one, and match the IS performance of the f/4 IS version as well.

This was found about 6 posts down here:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=28692794

But better yet, over at slrgear.com they have what's called an interactive blur index...open each of these links and position the boxes next to each other and adjust the focal length for a given aperture to see the plane of "blurness" the closer the color to pink the sharper the image:

70-200 f/4L IS: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon70-200f4is/tloader.htm

70-200 f/2.8 IS:  http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon70-200f28is/tloader.htm

-Roy

[b.d.bop]

Thanks for the reference, Roy.  Both admittedly great lenses any way we put it!

/Mark