Canon 70-200 IS Question

[jd1585]

Ok. So I recently picked up a used 70 - 200 f2.8 IS. The exterior had some scuffs but the glass looks flawless and there is no visible dust in the lens. I have a 15 day return policy so this weekend I got a chance to play around and I noticed it seemed soft wide open and 70 and at 200. This could be me being paranoid because I don't usually go used, but I want to make sure before my return policy is up. I will post a few, if you guys want to let me know what you think. Also it would be awesone if you would be willing to post a few you have taken straight out of the camera. Sorry this was long but even at $1000 used it was a major investment.

One more thing. It could be user error, but I tried everything I know. Manually focus, tripod, and stopped to f8, and I my 70 - 200 f4 I had before seemed sharper.

Thanks. Pics in a minute.

[ziggy53]

Jason,

The Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS) "is" a bit soft wide open. At f4 it sharpens very nicely. The important part is that with some sharpening the f2.8 is very usable. This makes it a very good choice for night and low-light work. For night sports it is about the only zoom I recommend.

[jd1585]

Ok. So I recently picked up a used 70 - 200 f2.8 IS. The exterior had some scuffs but the glass looks flawless and there is no visible dust in the lens. I have a 15 day return policy so this weekend I got a chance to play around and I noticed it seemed soft wide open and 70 and at 200. This could be me being paranoid because I don't usually go used, but I want to make sure before my return policy is up. I will post a few, if you guys want to let me know what you think. Also it would be awesone if you would be willing to post a few you have taken straight out of the camera. Sorry this was long but even at $1000 used it was a major investment.

One more thing. It could be user error, but I tried everything I know. Manually focus, tripod, and stopped to f8, and I my 70 - 200 f4 I had before seemed sharper.

Thanks. Pics in a minute.

Here is another one.

[jd1585]

Here is another one.

Last one.

[ziggy53]

At these screen resolutions they look fine to me, except the last which might be a little soft, possibly because of the distance to subject. I like to keep the subject at least twice MFD. Since MFD for the 70-200mm, f2.8L IS is around 4.6 feet, I suggest the best close focus distance is at around 9 feet.

Note that the f4 version has a shorter MFD at 3.9 feet, so it would allow a bit shorter distance to subject.

Do you have any links to full-sized images or at least 1:1 image crops?

[jd1585]

At these screen resolutions they look fine to me, except the last which might be a little soft, possibly because of the distance to subject. I like to keep the subject at least twice MFD. Since MFD for the 70-200mm, f2.8L IS is around 4.6 feet, I suggest the best close focus distance is at around 9 feet.

Note that the f4 version has a shorter MFD at 3.9 feet, so it would allow a bit shorter distance to subject.

Do you have any links to full-sized images or at least 1:1 image crops?

Here is a link to the gallery. I think you may be on to something. I know I was closer then 9 feet. I appreciate all the help.

http://jd1585.smugmug.com/gallery/8891974_Cfa6g/1/589744110_bm3QT

[ziggy53]

Of these images the 'jumping in the air' image is very, very sharp. The other 2 are somewhat soft and I do believe that you were too close for optimal focus.

[rookieshooter]

They do look a little soft to me as well. However, that can be compensated for in photshop. Am I wrong? I'm always willing to learn and if I'm wrong let me know! These animals were all about 20 feet away, give or take a few feet.

For examples, I present my own shots with a 70-200 non-IS with a 40D

200mm F2.8
http://joshnorem.smugmug.com/photos/482538511_C2Wk2-L.jpg

200mm F2.8
http://joshnorem.smugmug.com/photos/487863615_8FhJq-L.jpg

165mm F2.8
http://joshnorem.smugmug.com/photos/482541201_jbLJc-L.jpg

200mm F5.6
http://joshnorem.smugmug.com/photos/482538890_RHGo4-L.jpg

[Scott_Quier]

I looked at numbers 3, 4, 11, and 12

Looking at the originals, I don't see anything to be concerned about and a lot to be quite happy about.

Take #12 as an example .... pixel peeping this one, you can see individual eyelashes, eyebrow hairs, skin pores on her forehead, and individual strands of hair - all quite sharp enough to make me happy.

I don't think you have anything to be concerned about as far as lens sharpness is concerned.

Exposure - well we all have something to work on. :D

[jd1585]

I looked at numbers 3, 4, 11, and 12

Looking at the originals, I don't see anything to be concerned about and a lot to be quite happy about.

Take #12 as an example .... pixel peeping this one, you can see individual eyelashes, eyebrow hairs, skin pores on her forehead, and individual strands of hair - all quite sharp enough to make me happy.

I don't think you have anything to be concerned about as far as lens sharpness is concerned.

Exposure - well we all have something to work on. :D

Thanks for the great feedback. I am glad to hear I was able to score a decent lens a super low price. As for exposure, I am far from a master, I sometimes get hung up on metering modes when going between shade and sun any tips?

[Scott_Quier]

Tips:

Watch your histogram for spikes and the image in the LCD for blinkies :D
Once on your computer, toss out the garbage - we ALL have stuff that doesn't make the cut so feel no shame about tossing 50% or more of the shots you take :deal

HTH