> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:05:37 +0100 > From: "Craig Zendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: EOS 70-200L IS - First impressions > > I've had the IS lens for three weeks now. It's used with 1Ns. > > The autofocusing is quicker than the old lens, which was no slouch. I > suspect the difference would be more noticeable with later bodies > (e.g 3s or > 1Vs). I haven't > had to use it in AI Servo (Follow focus) mode yet but expect an > improvement. > Also, it is quieter (though these differences may be due to the age of the > old lens). > > Optically, there seems to be nothing in it, although I haven't > tried a side > by side > comparison with the old lens. I probably won't, as I don't intend > to keep it > and > all it would really achieve, maybe, is to satisfy some morbid > curiosity. (A > bit like the recent 21v35 zone metering debate. Incidentally, if you find > your camera over/underexposing by a reasonably consistent amount, this can > be tweaked by Service Dept. My 1Ns were both about 1/2 stop under). > > The IS lens seems no more prone to flare than the old lens, which is > gratifying, given it's extra complexity. > > The IS lens shifts focus more than the old lens when zooming, making > refocusing essential. > ____________________________________________
Hi Craig, Thank you very much for the lens report. Non-marketing type of info on this lens has been hard to come by and your comments are much appreciated. :) >From your report, the lens sounds like a dream come true. Like many others on this list, I have been contemplating this lens, but the realization that it contains more lens elements than any other AF lens in the world has been a cause for concern. With so many elements, chances of lens decentering (element misalignment) is increased unless Canon's quality control is spot on. I've seen some samples of 70-200L lenses having one of its corners noticeably softer probably due to a slightly less than perfect alignment of the elements. My other concern was the loss of micro detail and lower light transmission due to the extra glass. I mean, it could be rated at f/2.8, but may actually transmit marginally less light due to internal reflections. How about trying both lenses on your 1n and see if they give the exact same readings at f/2.8 (AV mode) when pointed at the same subject under similar lighting conditions? I presume the colour rendition and contrast of both lenses are also similar? Your observation of the improved AF performance is the first I've user report I've read and that's welcome news. Another interesting observation you made was the shift in focus when zooming. Not so good news, but I doubt it will be a problem under real shooting conditions since I always instinctively refocus after zooming. I certainly do not expect this lens to have better flare resistance than its older sibling, but to equal its performance in this department (as you mentioned) is indeed wonderful. BTW, how does it flare? Meaning, when it does flare, does it have huge orange hot-spots when pointed into a strong light source or does it exhibit veiling glare and ghosting? Finally, how is the handling? Does the extra weight affect the balance and do you find this weight increase noticeable compared to the older lens? Has the quality of its construction improved, as in, does it seem more robust than the older lens besides being more weather resistant? Is the rear element sealed or are there gaps where dust can enter the lens barrel via the corner gaps in the rear element (as with the old model)? Quite a few questions I've asked and your answers will be much appreciated. Once again, thanks for your feedback. Keep it coming if you learn anything else about this new kid on the block! Cheers, Jonathan Kwok * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
