Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 2.8 IS L USM users help please....

Go to last post
S

Sems

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Leeds, UK
is your 70-200 2.8 IS L USM sharp and does it focus correctly at both ends of the focal length??

Hi people I am asking this question in regards to the shear hell I am having with canon servicing in the UK, 5 months and 6 repairs later (far to lengthy to post the catalogue of errors and lies) I thought we had made progress as they finally brought someone in who found the fault and were repairing it.

After breaking out in a cold sweat in anticipation of finally getting my hands on my very own working lens, we received a phone call as the lens was going through it’s final testing to be told by the technical manager a few things about zoom lens……. We are well aware that zooms are not a sharp as primes in most cases but what we were told blew our minds, according to the guy that no zoom lens work correctly through out the focal range and that if it is perfect at one end, that it probably wont be as good at the other, and the fact I’m using a 30D instead of a 1D could explain the reasons for some of the back focusing.

Part of the fault it was sent in for was sharpness and severe back focusing issues at 70mm, so now it seems I am expecting too much to have a lens that does not back focus or have good sharpness through out the whole focal range and have to sacrifice focusing or sharpness at one end.

Has any one else had these issues of softness and focus problems at either end or is my friends 70-200 a miracle that works @70 all the way through to 200 without a problem?
 
My 70-200 works pretty well really, very few complaints, I'll try to answer some of your questions below:
Sems said:
is your 70-200 2.8 IS L USM sharp and does it focus correctly at
both ends of the focal length??
Click to expand...
Sems said:
Has any one else had these issues of softness and focus problems at
either end or is my friends 70-200 a miracle that works @70 all the
way through to 200 without a problem?
Click to expand...
Yes it is pretty sharp and AF is good at all focal lengths. It is slightly less sharp at f/2.8 than f/4, at f/4 it REALLY shines, even with a 1.4x TC. In my lens f/2.8 seems more like f/2.9-f/3.0 based on exposure though and contrast is down just a little. Very usable though!

It should work very well on a 30D- mine does struggle with my 350D/XT but is great on my 20D and 400D/XTi. A zoom of this price should be prime-like! Sounds like you have been told a load of bull!

Have you tried sending YOUR camera in with the lens? I've just done that with Sigma with my 30 1.4 and 150 2.8- that way they can't say it is your camera that is out of spec- in your case both are canon products!!
 
they have had the camera in 6 times with the lens, on five times they came back " calibrated to canon Specifications" yet there was no improvement.

On the 6th time they apraently called in the top guy who spotted a fault that was causing the problems and told the techs at borhamwood how to fix it, apparently they are testing the lens before sending it back to me for the 6th time. ( they have been caught out in another lie after claiming the photos were taken on the 12th, yet when I asked for copies of the test photos the exif data showed they had been taken this afternoon 14th, problem was at 70mm and all the test shots I have been sent are at 200mm).

I would love to post the list of lies and errors I have been told so far but the text alone is a 7 page word document.

I understand that zoom may not be perfect through out the focal range @2.8, but the guy is impling that at minimum focusing distance ( about 6ft I think) that its ok for the lens to back focus by over a foot.

I belived it could have been user error until I picked up a freinds and got some perfect shots first time round.

so just trying to find out if my backfocusing lens is standard as suggested by the tech and my friends was built by magic pixies to be pefrect.
 
Sems said:
I understand that zoom may not be perfect through out the focal
range @2.8, but the guy is impling that at minimum focusing
distance ( about 6ft I think) that its ok for the lens to back
focus by over a foot.
Click to expand...
No it is not
Sems said:
I belived it could have been user error until I picked up a freinds
and got some perfect shots first time round.
so just trying to find out if my backfocusing lens is standard as
suggested by the tech and my friends was built by magic pixies to
be pefrect.
Click to expand...
Focus should be accurate throughout the range
 
If your lens has been in for repair 6 times and still shows an issue, I would be demanding for Canon to give me a completely new lens. It's not acceptable to have something defective that costs $1600.

By the way, my 70-200 2.8 IS works perfectly and I wouldn't trade it for anything...



--
Brandon
5D

Brandon Berg Photography
http://www.bberg23.zenfolio.com
 
still front focuses a bit, but I suspect most of that is the 20D rather than the lens. When I test it alongside all my other lenses wide open, it is about last place. But thats compared to a 400f5.6 and a 500f4and a 17-40f4. The 17-40F4 is about the same at the 70-200 wide open.

I tested mostly at 200mm, and if I focus first, then move the target 1/4 inch closer, it is sharper. This is at the min focus distance. All my other lenses have great DOF ar minimum focus distances. So they could all fornt focus and nt look as bad as a 200f2.8

The problem with a 2.8 lens is that DOF is very shallow. There is a tolerance on focus for both the camera and the lens and Canon will not tell me what it is. I suspect about + - one DOF. They have no liability to make it better than factory spec.

I think that when people report the lens to be sharper stopped down, a lot of what they see is simply better DOF that compensates for Canons really sloppy AF on the cheap bodies.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Ben_Egbert said:
Agreed, and I suspect the real problem is teh crummy AF in the
prosumer bodies anyway. F2.8 requires a real AF system.
Click to expand...
Not just this, people should just simply understand that you can't compare something you don't have. F4 lens doesn't have F2.8 aperture, and to me this is why I paid money for.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/best_of_
 
lenny_shp said:
lenny_shp said:
Agreed, and I suspect the real problem is teh crummy AF in the
prosumer bodies anyway. F2.8 requires a real AF system.
Click to expand...
Not just this, people should just simply understand that you can't
compare something you don't have. F4 lens doesn't have F2.8
aperture, and to me this is why I paid money for.
Click to expand...
Right, but unless you are shooting something at long distance at 200 f2.8, the DOF is razor thin and focus is absolutly critical, otherwise why bother with f2.8 to begin with?

The only way I can use my 200 at f2.8 is to manually focus it because the "stil in spec "front focus error on my 20D is too large.

That may be why so many people like the f4, it is not subject to the critical focus of the f2.8.
lenny_shp said:
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/best_of_
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
DeeDee,

I'm about to send my 3 month old 70-200 f2.8 IS into Canon for service and calibration. I'm experiencing softness from f5.6-f2.8...more so wide open. Pretty ridiculous for such an expensive lens. If I knew it was unusable at f2.8 I would have gotten the f4.

However my question to you is...what were your issues before calibration, and how much better is it afterward? What did Canon state that the problem was? Also, which service center did you deal with?

Thanks for the reply.
 
Yellow_Canon said:
DeeDee,
I'm about to send my 3 month old 70-200 f2.8 IS into Canon for
service and calibration. I'm experiencing softness from
f5.6-f2.8...more so wide open. Pretty ridiculous for such an
expensive lens. If I knew it was unusable at f2.8 I would have
gotten the f4.

However my question to you is...what were your issues before
calibration, and how much better is it afterward? What did Canon
state that the problem was? Also, which service center did you
deal with?

Thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...
My theory is this after two trips to Canon Irvine for the 70-200f2.8is and the 20d. All my lenses look pretty good other than the 70-200 from f2.8 to about f4. But if I focus and then pull the target forward 1/4 inch, it gets much better.

I think the front focus is in the camera not the lens, but it is far more critical at f2.8 than it is on my other lenses, so it makes the 70-200 seem worse.

Just a theory, I plan to test it on my 1-DS-mk3.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
lenny_shp said:
No problems so far, if this is one of the F4 vs F2.8 than please
stop. Getting ridiculous already to read about.

--
Click to expand...
it's nothing to do with with f4 Vs 2.8, both are great lens most of the time and function correctly for there given job. if I had wanted the f4 thats the one I would have bought, but the 2.8 IS was the most apropriate for me.

the reason I am asking is I own the 70-200 2.8, canon have established there is a fault with the lens but have also told me I probably wont have a lens that focus correctly at both ends and or have sharpness issues.

other 70-200 2.8 IS lens I have used have not shown this problem and just trying to find out if what I was told by canon was a line to cover thier own backs when it is returned for the 6th time or it was an issue with a number of lens and my friends just lucked out on thier copies.
 
With several threads questioning the IQ of the 70-200Lf/2.8IS, a few days ago I went back and tested mine again. Mind you, I never had a "real" shot that disappointed me in terms of sharpness, that I couldn't ascribe to user error, and I often shoot in low light close to wide open.

Anyhow, I taped up the newsletter, camera on tripod, about 9 ft away, cable release, mirror lockup, auto focus (wasn't willing to fuss with manual focus). I took frames at 70mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm at f/2.8, f/4.0, and f/5.6.

At all four focal lengths, the pictures were what I would call tack sharp even wide open, with practically no improvement when stopping down (certainly not in the center, and perhaps just slightly in the corners, but not enough to matter in real world shots).

Maybe I got lucky with this lens (my 24-70 was another story). I had always thought the 70-200L lenses had comparatively few quality control issues (perhaps other than the IS lockup problems), but if that has changed in recent batches, that would be a shame.

--
'Great meal. What pots did you use?' -- Petteri

Wolfgang Bluhm
http://www.wbluhm.com/
 
On my new 70-200L f/2.8 IS, and a new 400D (cheap body, I know - I prioritized glass), I did the $20 bill microline test.

Minimum focus distance, tripod mount, IR remote 2 second delay and mirror lockup mode:

70mm - microlines not visible, regardless of aperture, but still relatively sharp.

100mm-200mm - microlines quite visible, regardless of aperture.

Adding a x2.0 teleconverter, still at minimum focus:
70/140mm f/5.6 (minimum) - microlines barely, partly there
70/140mm f/8.0 (minimum) - microlines barely, completely there
100/200mm-200/400mm - microlines visible, regardless of aperture

x2.0 and doubling the distance:
70/140mm - microlines not visible, only tried f/5.6

100/200mm-200/400mm - microlines visible, though not as well defined as without the teleconverter.

One-shot autofocus mode used.

I'd have to say I'm extremely pleased with my lens, perhaps because I don't really intend to use the 70-100mm range much at all, and I'm more concerned with having saleably sharp photos at f/2.8, 100-200mm. At some point, I'll pick up a 24-70 to handle 70mm.

The teleconverter is a loaner, and I was expecting it to be much worse.

--
http://www.pbase.com/nadrek
Equipment list in profile
 
Nadrek said:
On my new 70-200L f/2.8 IS, and a new 400D (cheap body, I know - I
prioritized glass), I did the $20 bill microline test.
Click to expand...
Well my bet is that your 400 does not front/back focus as much as my 20D. I think my camera is probably right at the tolerance limits.
Nadrek said:
Minimum focus distance, tripod mount, IR remote 2 second delay and
mirror lockup mode:
70mm - microlines not visible, regardless of aperture, but still
relatively sharp.
Click to expand...
On my 70, the close focus distance is so far away that the magnification factor is really small compared to 200mm. I used an extension tube to get the mag factor back up and the 70 was just as good as at 200. I have not put up any images however.

Try to get the image size constant for all shots.
Nadrek said:
100mm-200mm - microlines quite visible, regardless of aperture.

Adding a x2.0 teleconverter, still at minimum focus:
70/140mm f/5.6 (minimum) - microlines barely, partly there
70/140mm f/8.0 (minimum) - microlines barely, completely there
100/200mm-200/400mm - microlines visible, regardless of aperture

x2.0 and doubling the distance:
70/140mm - microlines not visible, only tried f/5.6
100/200mm-200/400mm - microlines visible, though not as well
defined as without the teleconverter.

One-shot autofocus mode used.

I'd have to say I'm extremely pleased with my lens, perhaps because
I don't really intend to use the 70-100mm range much at all, and
I'm more concerned with having saleably sharp photos at f/2.8,
100-200mm. At some point, I'll pick up a 24-70 to handle 70mm.

The teleconverter is a loaner, and I was expecting it to be much
worse.

--
http://www.pbase.com/nadrek
Equipment list in profile
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Funny you should ask! I happened to run across the papers from bringing in my 16-35, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM lens to Canon back in October, 2004. I was using the 30D back then and I think part of it had to do with that camera. There seemed to be a lot of talk on this forum about back and front focusing issues at that time.

To compare, I have not had to do anything with the lenses using the 30D. I have also added the 24-105 f4L IS and the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS lenses. They are work fine with my 30D.

Anyway, with the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM lens, the only verbiage on that page I received from Canon is under "Service Details" it states, "Adjusted BEST FOCUS POINT. CLEANED ELEMENTS. CK/ADJ/LUB/ALL FUNCTIONS TO FACTOR SPECS." (I'm not shouting - this is exactly how it was printed.)

I brought my equipment to:

Canon U.S.A., Inc
Factory Service Center
15955 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA. 92618
Tel: 949-753-4200

I hope that helps.

I was also looking for some examples for you on my pbase site. Here is one taken at f4 from a ways away. I had to run like hel* to get into the picture! LOL



Exif info Here:

http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/image/64365345



Larger Version here:

http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/image/34356169/original

Exif info here:

http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/image/34356169/large

This one is at f/8 with the 1.4 converter:



Exif info here:

http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/image/64965884

f5.6 200mm



Exif Here:

http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/image/26666038

Anyway, I hope that helps.

--
DeeDee G.
http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/root
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top