70-200 Tack Sharp? Not mine and/or I suck. :(

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/12/2004 06:32:32 PM · #1

I just got my 70-200/2.8 IS -- Yay!

Went to the zoo in so-so light and took a lot of shots at 2.8 (almost all of them) didn't really do any tests. Now that I'm home looking at them, I'm surprised at the not-so-sharp quality of almost all shots. :(

I didn't stop down or play around with settings, shutter speed wasn't super but it was usually faster than 1/100th and IS was on. I realize the DoF with 2.8 is still shallow at 200mm, but still...

Do you think I got a bad copy? Are there any objective tests you can recommend for me to try to rule out user error?

I'll put up some samples later, but for now, I'm a little let down. A lot let down actually. Maybe I was just expecting magic. :(

-Ara

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

12/12/2004 06:35:23 PM · #2

Post some samples. Remember that at f/2.8 at 200mm the DOF is really really shallow if you are not careful...

PhilipDyer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/12/2004 06:45:58 PM · #3

With IS on at 200mm, you should have pretty clear shots at any exposure above 1/60. But I would stop down to f/8 or f/11 for clear shots at that distance. If that brings you down to an unacceptably low exposure time, then you'll have to use a tripod (and you can turn IS off to conserve battery power), which I pretty much always recommend for good zoo shots anyway since the animals tend to be so far away.

Congrats on the new lens. I think you'll love it once you figure out the best settings to take great shots with it.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/12/2004 07:13:16 PM · #4

I have the F4 version of the lens and wide open I tend to get a lot of miss-focused shots (both front and baclk focus) especially when shooting action. Stop down to f/8 and my 'hits' noticeably improve. I attribute this to the camera body and not the lens itself. On a 20D or especially a 1-series camera the focusing mechanisms are more sophisticated and the lens would perform better. For shooting static targets I often use the manual focus override and roll focus back and forth until it's sharp.

It's probably not a problem with the lens, though do post some shots for us.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

12/12/2004 07:26:49 PM · #5

Tons of people have issues with Canon's 70-200 f4. Yes, it's a very sharp lens when it focusses properly, but many people have cited issues of front-focussing or back-focussing when shooting in the 70-100mm range. My copy of this lens is giving me incosistent results in this range, but works flawlessly in the 135-200mm range. While shooting in the 70 to 100mm range, sometimes I get great results, other times it produces softer images than my old 28-80 f3.5-5.6

From what I know, it is fixable by canon. I will be getting my lens looked at after Xmas by te local Canon certified repair shop. Mine was bought used, so I will have to shell out $$ for that.

Examples of problems with this lens:

//www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/155739

You can probably find more links if you search this subject in greater detail.

Have the lens checked by Canon or get a repalcement copy if it's still under warranty.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/12/2004 08:36:32 PM · #6

Here are the 100% crops saved at higest JPG quality: No sharpening beyond the 25% default in the PS CS RAW converter. Adjusted most exposures up by +0.25 to +1.00

#1 ISO 400, 1/60, f/2.8, 70mm
#2 ISO 200, 1/100, f/2.8, 200mm
#3 ISO 200, 1/200, f/2.8, 200mm
#4 ISO 200, 1/50, f/2.8, 120mm

Here are the original frames with lower quality to fit below 1024K:

The first and the third are ok/pretty good. The other two really bother me.

I shot over 150 frames at the zoo, and most of them are off. Looking again I realize that maybe this is a shallow DoF combined with slightly different focus than I was expecting/trying for.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/12/2004 08:43:08 PM · #7

Number 2 and 4 are motion blur (subject motion). You don't specify what the shutter speed was, but it seems pretty slow, I'd say 1/30 or so on # 4. Shot #1 is just fine, you need to boost the contrast a bit for the flat light, and apply USM, you should find that this sharpens up nicely.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

12/12/2004 08:45:13 PM · #8

I agree with Kirbic, 1/100 for the lion is too slow, and 1/50 is way, way too slow to shoot moving birds, even if they're just walking around.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/12/2004 08:46:54 PM · #9

Originally posted by kirbic:

But I spent all that time typing in the info... :^)

#2 ISO 200, 1/100, f/2.8, 200mm
#4 ISO 200, 1/50, f/2.8, 120mm

1/30 is a little low for me even with IS my hands are WAY too shaky.

Yes, I got a few nice shots in, but many were bad. I will load a few more for inspection.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

12/12/2004 08:55:00 PM · #10

Originally posted by BikeRacer:

...1/30 is a little low for me even with IS my hands are WAY too shaky.

Yes, I got a few nice shots in, but many were bad. I will load a few more for inspection.

It's not just a question of your hand shaking, it's also a function of your subject moving, for moving animals (or people for that matter), you need 1/250 minimum to freeze motion, more if they are moving fast. Your photos are not bad at all, I wouldn't blame the lens for being unsharp. They are pretty sharp given the conditions.

Edit: Try to boost your ISo to get the shutter speed required to get tack sharp images. :)

Message edited by author 2004-12-12 20:56:17.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/12/2004 08:58:13 PM · #11

Here's another - shot through glass:

same deal, f/2.8 @ 1/100 @ 200mm.

I guess I'm just an idiot - I got so scared when the images weren't all razor sharp out of the camera I kinda freaked. I haven't even played with the 2x extender yet.

Are there any other tips for shooting with the 70-200?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

12/12/2004 09:00:12 PM · #12

Only tip I have (and this works for all telephoto lenses) is try to shoot at higher shutter speeds...

12/12/2004 09:06:35 PM · #13

Thanks for the help/support. Here's one that I liked a lot - I've always had good luck with cranes, maybe it's because they don't move too fast... :^)

12/12/2004 09:31:26 PM · #14

Ok, Ok. I think I'm over my panic attack. Thanks again to all who replied. I freaked because of the $$ spent and probably shouldn't have expected much with the late day heavy overcast. I don't like to push the ISO past 400 much, so I definitely conspired against myself with this shoot.

Here's one that turned out:

When I looked at the shot data, the ISO was 400 (I guess I'd boosted it), the aperture f/5 and the shutter 1/400 -- also, the lens was only out to 110mm.

Color me foolish again.

12/12/2004 09:46:49 PM · #15

One last one for now:

12/12/2004 11:47:04 PM · #16

although it seems as though all my problems were related to my own dumbness, i still wonder if there are any objective tests i can/should run on the lens. anyone know of any?