A bit disapointed with 70-200 IS

[robscomputer]

I'm not usually pixelpeeping or comparing edge to edge sharpness with different lenses but my recent purchase has me wondering if the sharpness is normal for this zoom lens. I know from previous reviews the 70-200 IS is not as sharp as the non-IS version and in some cases the f/4 version but it seems that my lens doesn't appear as sharp as expected.

Here's some sample images. These have been slightly sharpened in CS2.

http://robscomputer.smugmug.com/photos/28441197-O.jpg

http://robscomputer.smugmug.com/photos/28441209-O.jpg

Now after owning the lens for a month I'm starting to think I should have listen to Andy's advice and went for the 200mm prime.

Rob

[USAIR]

Was waiting for others more knowlegeable then me to chime in of this but....

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and I must say very good lens
Very sharp plus the IS is unbelievable works great
The bokeh is smooth as silk
This is one of my favorite lenses :D

Fred

[mercphoto]

I'm not usually pixelpeeping or comparing edge to edge sharpness with different lenses but my recent purchase has me wondering if the sharpness is normal for this zoom lens. I know from previous reviews the 70-200 IS is not as sharp as the non-IS version and in some cases the f/4 version but it seems that my lens doesn't appear as sharp as expected.
What were your camera settings for those shots? I have your lens and love it.

[robscomputer]

I took the photos in RAW, with auto white balance. The camera was set for A, and here's the Exif info.

Image 1
Aperture: f/4.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 70mm Exposure Time: 0.0006s (1/1500)Flash:Flash fired.Exposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:-0.5

Image 2
Aperture: f/4.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 70mm Exposure Time: 0.002s (1/500)Flash:Flash fired.Exposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:-0.5

I used Photoshop CS2 for post processing, sharpened about 30% with FM's Intellisharpen and then resized for the web.

Again, I'm not sure, I'm new to this lens and can very well be my picture taking was causing an issue but my 50mm f/1.4 lens seems sharper than this lens. Just wondering if this is normal sharpness?

Rob

[mercphoto]

f/4 is almost certainly going to give you too shallow a depth of field for those shots. I'm not surprised little is sharp.
Again, I'm not sure, I'm new to this lens and can very well be my picture taking was causing an issue but my 50mm f/1.4 lens seems sharper than this lens. Just wondering if this is normal sharpness?
You should take apples-to-apples pictures. Pictures with both, at same location, same camera settings, then compare.

[JimM]

I think they look pretty sharp, it is tough to tell on a computer monitor with a subject designed to be smooth (not sharp) The license plate line look sharp.

[gluwater]

Ummm I may be pretty new to this but how can you compare the sharpness of a 50mm f/1.4 Prime to a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS? Shouldn't the Prime be sharper even if it's not L glass? Am I wrong or isn't that an unfair comparison?

[robscomputer]

This weekend I'll try and set up a test between the two lenses. I have gotten great photos from the lens but wasn't sure about the sharpness since I have never used a high quality zoom lens.

Ummm I may be pretty new to this but how can you compare the sharpness of a 50mm f/1.4 Prime to a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS? Shouldn't the Prime be sharper even if it's not L glass? Am I wrong or isn't that an unfair comparison?
I guess that is my real question, I haven't had experience with the higher end zooms and just my old f/4 and 50mm. Just wondering if I should be expecting more.

Rob

[ginger_55]

I haven't read all the posts, I will confess that. But I do have something to say.

I have owned the 70-200L f4 since about February. All my lenses are "new" to me since then. I have that, the 17-40L, the 300L and extenders that I use with the 300.

At first I hated the 70-200L, just hated it. My pictures were less sharp with it than with the other lenses, etc. I whined, but I kept the lens. Others seemed to like theirs and I really did need one that length.

Why didn't I like it? Focus issues. It seemed softer than my other lenses. I just could not rely on it to give me a nice sharp photo.

(Uh, I hate to say this, but I think it was somewhat due to the fact that it is a long lens, without IS. My 300 has IS, my 17-40, it is a wide, fewer focus issues naturally. Also it would be less apt to be used in dicey situations.)

Whatever the reason, my 70-200L is not my most used lens, that has to do with what I shoot, rather than the lens. Now, the lens is much sharper. I think I just needed to adapt my holding techniques.

I would give your lens some time. It might come around on its own.

ginger (don't forget to use it enough to "train" it how you want it to act)

[Khaos]

This weekend I'll try and set up a test between the two lenses. I have gotten great photos from the lens but wasn't sure about the sharpness since I have never used a high quality zoom lens.


I guess that is my real question, I haven't had experience with the higher end zooms and just my old f/4 and 50mm. Just wondering if I should be expecting more.

Rob
Yes, but not from the lens. It will give you what you give it. The pics look like the were taken in harsh sun of a shiny metal object in an uninteresting environment. Sorry, but this wasn't much of a test. This lens, to me, is one of the most amazing zooms there is. Yes a prime in the same matched focal length will be slightly sharper, SLIGHTLY.

Use the light. This puppy has IS. It loves low light and to give you those great saturated colors and textures like this (click on pics for exif):

http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/29302593-M.jpg (http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=29302593)


http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/29077559-M.jpg (http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=29077559)


It makes for a pretty darn good portrait lens also.

http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/27757553-M.jpg (http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=27757553)


http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/27757712-M.jpg (http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=27757712)


I have so many I can put here that show how this lens is sharp, gives you great bokeh and does a fantastic jub wide open. This lens is the real deal.:deal Play, learn, or you can sell it.:dunno Many will be willing to buy it from you.:nod

[mereimage]

I had the 70-200IS on that camera 90% of the time and loved it. Great low light range, creamy bokah, and extremely sharp. Never-the-less it it did occ. have some 'back focus' issues though usually in low light portrait conditions. Your pics look to have a shallow depth of field and to poss. be focused about 6 in. back of the side - look at the rear spoiler wing in the 1st pic and at the headlight in the 2nd pic. this can be adjusted by your Canon rep. Also I feel this lens is definitely sharper in the mid range esp,. ~ 135, the MTF curves for the 70-200IS at 135 are incredibly similar to those of the Canon 135f2 prime. I loved the lens on that camera- though in counterpoint my bro rarely used that lens on his 10d-though I think size and weight played a role and he had the Canon 24-70 f2.8 which he preferred. Hope this helps ////Mereimage

[gtc]

why not stop down to f6.0-f8.0?

i think it would be pin sharp at f8.0

[mercphoto]

why not stop down to f6.0-f8.0?

i think it would be pin sharp at f8.0
It is, but its also a great lens at 2.8. I still think the problem was his choice for judging the sharpness of the lens. Too much depth in that scene to judge the lens when wide open.

[robscomputer]

I just posted some new pictures I shot this weekend using the 70-200. Looks like they came out better than before and expect the lower quality might have been from slow shutter speeds.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=143809#post143809

Rob

[mercphoto]

I just posted some new pictures I shot this weekend using the 70-200. Looks like they came out better than before and expect the lower quality might have been from slow shutter speeds.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=143809#post143809
Yeah, those look nice and much better. Notice how wonderfully circular the background blurring is. Also notice how shallow the DOF is. In a few shots, the back shoulder is already going soft (as it should) and does so rather gracefully. Very cool.

[Matthew Saville]

Yeah, those look nice and much better. Notice how wonderfully circular the background blurring is. Also notice how shallow the DOF is. In a few shots, the back shoulder is already going soft (as it should) and does so rather gracefully. Very cool. Having shot with both the 70-200 IS AND the 70-200 VR, I must say that these lenses are pro, benchmark lenses for a reason. They rock. Most people don't realize, It's such a feat to get f/2.8 into a 200mm lens, let alone the part about it zooming to 70mm as well. Just take a look at the 200 f/1.8 (L?) and the 200 f/2.0 VR, those lenses are, like I always say, as big as a car transmission. They're probably a bit sharper than the 70-200 zooms, but considering the incredible compactness of the zooms and the stellar performance even at f/2.8, I'd become a permanent owner at the drop of a hat, if someone else could just drop the dough...

-Matt-

[ian408]

Hi Rob.

One question. Are you shooting this with a tripod? If so, turn the IS off.
If you're on a monpod, set the mode to "2" (panning).

Also, the correct shutter speed, ISO and f-stop really depend on what
you're trying to achieve photographically as well as the lighting conditions
you're shootng in.

The 70-200 is a great lens. And with any tool, it takes some time to learn
how to get the most out of it. Your second batch of shots are much better
than the first so you're on the way.

Cheers,
Ian

[robscomputer]

Hi Rob.

One question. Are you shooting this with a tripod? If so, turn the IS off.
If you're on a monpod, set the mode to "2" (panning).


For these pictures and the previous pictures I was hand holding the camera. Both times the IS was running in mode 1.

Thanks for the comments, I think I might have second guessed the lens as having a problem with focusing rather than my ability to use it correctly.

Rob

[binghott]

Now after owning the lens for a month I'm starting to think I should have listen to Andy's advice and went for the 200mm prime.
Rob
i have the 70-200mm f2.8 non-is and absolutely love it. that said, i've gotten the chance to use the 200mm f2.8 recently, it's also a superb lens and it is incedibly lighter than my 70-200.