70-200 2.8 IS dissapointment

Thanks again for your help. Yes I have a Tamron 28-300 which I started with and got consistanly good results. In November I upgraded to a Canon 28-105 f4 IS and have had great results. Very few misfocus images. I can get eyelashes and 5 0'clock shadow from a fair distance. This is why I was hoping the new lens would be a great performer as well. I was aware that the lens at 2.8/200m would not be as sharp as other focal lengths but this is out of my acceptable range. All of these lenses have been on my 30D. I am going to take more test shots...I've got about 100 at this point.

Many Thanks for all of your input...keep it coming if you think of anything else.

I've seen a few reviews and most of them indicate softness at 2.8. I wouldn't say as bad as a cheap lens like the 75-300 zoom, but definite softness.

If this is variance between other copies of the same lens, Canon has a QC problem. Either way, shame on Canon.

Looking here, the lens looks sharp, but suffers from low contrast wide open. Perhaps how people see this is how they define sharpness. A low contrast condition can be cleaned up in editing better than all out softness.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&FLI=4&API=0

Thanks for your opinion. I am willing to go through the learning curve if I can determine it is user error.

I do know why I purchased a 2.8...To be honest, I think the comment that I do not need it if I don't know why is unfair and not a good representation of what I have said here. I am asking every question I can to determine if I am doing something wrong or it is in fact the lens. I purchased the 2.8 for sports, as it is used by many people.

If the slightest change of plane amounts to misfocus then how does this lens work well with moving players on a field? I have had decent luck with my other lenses for action. I understood that the lower stops would offer higher shutter speeds which is, in part, better for stopping action. I am new to this lens and am willing to learn a different way of handling it, however I am not a complete novice. As I said, I am having problems with stationary objects as well.
Thank you again for your help. Each response gives me something to consider.

Well, since the players are much further away form the camera, the depth of field is much greater than with close-ups. Have you tried the 70-200 w/ sports yet?

cmdh said:

If the slightest change of plane amounts to misfocus then how does
this lens work well with moving players on a field?

Click to expand...

I finally pulled the trigger and ordered the 70-200 IS just this morning. I have been researching this lens since last November and finally had the money saved up and went for it. Reading through this thread, I think there is a serious misunderstanding of what DOF is and how lenses operate. If you doubt what I am about to explain, check it out here http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

If you put a 70-200 lens on a crop sensor body, and zoom out to 170mm and open it up to f/2.8, and the subject is 20 feet away, you will have a very shallow DOF. Do you know how shallow?

The total DOF is .44 feet. That means that it is only 5.28 inches. Now, realize this, if you focus on a person's nose, the DOF is 5.28 inches total, meaning half in front of focus, and half behind. So, if you focus on their nose, you will only have 2.64 inches in focus behind their nose. There is no way their ears will be in focus. Same is true for the issue of the dog's nose.

So, if you switch to f/5.6, the DOF becomes .88 feet, double what it was before. This is simple optics and physics. It doesn't matter how amazing the glass is or how much you pay for it, you can't change physics.

If you are 10 feet from your dog with the 170mm at 2.8, the total DOF is only .21 feet, or 2.52 inches. Once again, this means if you are focused on the nose, only 1.26 inches back will be in the DOF. This is why it is most important to focus on the eye to assure the eye to be sharp. But, if their head is turned from the camera, it is possible for the other eye to be out of the DOF.

So, just realize the physics and accept what can't be changed. Of course you can stick the 70-300 on there at 5.6 and get more DOF, because it of course will. Yes it is wide open for that lens, but 5.6 is still twice the DOF of the 2.8. It won't be as sharp at 5.6 as the L glass at 5.6, but I guarantee it will have more DOF at 5.6 than your 2.8 will set at f/2.8. Understand your glass and accept it for what it is.

I am excited about my new lens coming from B&H, but I already know how shallow 2.8 is, but there are needs and uses for it. Portrait photography at close range at 2.8 is not proper for sharpness across the face and ears, so don't expect it and complain about the L glass.

--
Lyle Collins

Per Olof Pettersson said:

I usually test lenses by putting three boxes/books/cd-covers next
to each other, then moving one a couple of inches closer to the
lens and another a couple inches away. Focus on the middle box and
take a picture. If the lens focus correctly, the middle box will
be sharpest and the two other equally unsharp.

Click to expand...

Very good idea, and very telling. I did several 'takes' to make sure I had consistancy. Making sure to focus on something else in the room in between so the lens had to refocus for each shot. At no point was the middle book (intended target) sharpest. Three out of the four shots the rear book was sharper, one of the shots the front book was sharpest. One thing to note (which I had not noticed before) was the lens was doing a bit of jumping before locking focus. I was an acceptable distance away, so being too close was not the issue.

So, I do believe I may have a front/back focus issue.

I am considering returning the lens for another copy. I intend to hang onto these shots for comparison. Hopefully the second lens will be better. If not, I will send to Canon for calibration.

Many, many thanks!!

Thank you so much for the explaination. I do understand DOF, however I had no idea how shallow (only a few inches) this was. Very interesting!

I am not trying to complain for the sake of it. I am asking questions and trying to give information in the hopes of determining user error or equipment. I appreciate and fully accept your explaination. This would answer the issue if I wasn't having difficulty at many different distances and focal lengths...ie some at a closer range (perhaps too close according to your infomation) but some at a decent range...approx. distance from one sideline to the other. I tried a 'test' suggested in another post...setting up books a couple of inches varied in distance, locking focus on the middle book, and finally checking focus in photoshop. At not point over several shots (to check for consistancy) was the intended book in focus. I intend to do more test shots...over 100 at this point...and watch.

I respect and appreciate your response. I am not completely convinced this is user error. I actually hope it is, that would be easier to fix than getting a new lens.

at wide open your DOF is very small. No room for error. If you are getting shutter speeds near 4000th, try f4 or f5.6 and see if that helps!

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

Another thing to keep in mind when doing these tests is how the auto focus system operates. I believe I am correct on this but the system works based on the camera comparing areas of contrast and doing its calculations and metering and then focusing. This is why you cannot focus on certain solid color subjects, such as a wall. So, when doing the tests, put extra attention to giving it plenty of good directional light, and using good contrast subjects, in this case books. These are all extremely important factors in guaranteeing an accurate test. To anyone, please correct me if I am wrong in this matter.
--
Lyle Collins

I assume that, for static subjects, you are using one-shot and center-only focus?

cmdh said:

Thank you so much for the explaination. I do understand DOF,
however I had no idea how shallow (only a few inches) this was.
Very interesting!
I am not trying to complain for the sake of it. I am asking
questions and trying to give information in the hopes of
determining user error or equipment. I appreciate and fully accept
your explaination. This would answer the issue if I wasn't having
difficulty at many different distances and focal lengths...ie some
at a closer range (perhaps too close according to your infomation)
but some at a decent range...approx. distance from one sideline to
the other. I tried a 'test' suggested in another post...setting up
books a couple of inches varied in distance, locking focus on the
middle book, and finally checking focus in photoshop. At not point
over several shots (to check for consistancy) was the intended book
in focus. I intend to do more test shots...over 100 at this
point...and watch.
I respect and appreciate your response. I am not completely
convinced this is user error. I actually hope it is, that would be
easier to fix than getting a new lens.

Click to expand...

cmdh said:

After much debate (and saving my pennies) I purchased the all
hailed 70-200 2.8 IS. On inital tests I am really disappointed!
I took over 50 test shots of several outdoor/indoor settings. This
ranged from flowers, brick, and my lovely dog. I used f2.8/100ISO,
f2.8/400ISO, f5.6/100ISO, and f5.6/400ISO. I took three shots at
each setting using focal lengths of 70m, 100m, & 200m.
On review the f5.6 setting was consistantly sharper than the f2.8.
What gives? I am assuming my copy is not 'soft' as I get sharp
images from f5.6. A 'soft' copy would give soft images at all
stops, correct?
I purchased this lens mostly for sports so I will have to try it
out on moving subjects to see if the results are the same. I won't
get the needed shutter speed at f5.6, but the lens is not great at
f2.8.
If all images are better at a lower fstop than I'd be better off
with the less expensive f4 version, correct? If it is a matter of
using f5.6 on stills and getting great action shots at f2.8 I can
certainly make adjustments, however I am afraid given initial
results I won't be getting the sharpness with 2.8 on a moving
subject either...
Any insight anyone may offer is greatly appreciated. I'll need to
act fast if I am going to return the lens...

Click to expand...

This lens I own and yes it is soft @2.8 Im surprised nobody mention this to you at least mine is as well as tested the non IS is slightly better if your not happy return it for the non IS If you Need F2.8 If not The talk around here is the F4 IS version much sharper for less the price.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=9&Lens=103 Just like to say if you disagree with my posting this link in ths thread please make a seperate post as to not hijack this thread thank you ...
Ran into this problem before..

Why would you buy a lens w/o reading about it?

Sure most people who plunk down $1650+ for it will tell you it's the greatest lens in the world, but look beyond the top notch construction, and white paint, and you'll find many people not likeing any of the 70-200mm zooms, sigma, canon, or nikon.

Yes... my 1st professional lens was the canon ef 70-200 F2.8 USM NON-IS, and i actually think it was very sharp, even tho i don't like them, i will say i did like that lens. But it was slow to focus, and i needed it for sports.

After wards i bought a sigma version, then last summer i bought the f2.8 IS canon version. I liked the IS version least, altho the IS feature would've been great.

If i keep shooting weddings i'll probably go back to the F2.8 canon non IS version, but that's the only reason i'd buy one.

My customer and professional reviews find the 200 F2.8 L II fixed canon lens to be outstanding, as i have as well. I love this lens. It's much lighter, cheaper, and faster auto focus.

i find it crazy when anyone tells me any* 70-200 zoom focuses fast, because matched up aginst a fixed 200 or 300, they are sssllllow.

The 200 L f2.8 fixed also works perfectly with my 1.4x TC wide open, (F4), whereas i had to stop down my 70-200 f2.8 L IS to F5.6 to clean up the blue flare, at which point it was very sharp.

135 F2.0 L =$920
200 F2.8 L =$620

total = $1540 cheaper and better than any 70-200 (eps the 135L it's sharpness is beyond words).

the following professional reviewer does infact like the 70-200 f2.8 IS, altho read the last few lines, and you'll see that he states better image quality out of the fixed 200 than anything else.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

fred miranda reviewers rate the fixed higher than the f2.8 IS also.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=7&cat=2&page=1

... i wish i had enough money to just go out buy w.o reading...

AOKH said:

I assume that, for static subjects, you are using one-shot and
center-only focus?

Click to expand...

That's correct. I usually use center only focus...rarely change this. I only go on multipe shots when on the field during play time. Thanks for the help, these are things that may have altered results. I appreciate it.

--I shot with this lense wide open most of the time; it's sharp enough to be very effective. It's best resolution is at f/5.6 or so.
This is Canon's best zoom.

Shoot with RAW format and view in DPP. Look for excessive CA, it will manifest it's self as thin, fine red/blue lines on the sides of light colored objects. A white picket fence against a blue sky for example.

Shoot at different Aps, angles and distances. Check for it. If it's there, one or more of the lense elements is misaligned; it's out of spec, and/or damaged. In Jpeg mod this distortion just appears as a blur and isn't easy to distinguish from out of focus shots.

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-

dwill23 said:

... i wish i had enough money to just go out buy w.o reading...

Click to expand...

I don't think that the fairly minor differences in quality that you describe here are what the original poster is experiencing
--
Misha

I have read too many reviews and talked to too many people regarding my lens purchase for 6 months now. I finally felt comfortable with my decision, although I recognize some of the downsides of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I have a good friend who is a professional photographer and has the non IS version that he uses for sportbike work at the race track, as well as for his portrait photography. He has zero need for the IS because he is shooting at high shutter speeds for the bikes, or under lights for modeling work.

I did not want to have 2 more lenses to put in my bag and go off on a day hike. I wanted a great lens that I could use for sports, for portraits, for nature, and whatever else comes along. I prefer the flexibility of the zoom over a prime, giving up some sharpness. I chose the IS for those times that I am in nature, not having time to get my tripod set up and yet needing the extra help to hold the camera while I am getting my shot.

My goal was to be able to throw 3 lenses in my bag, my 17-35, 28-75 and 70-200 and be just fine and almost have complete 2.8. My only exception is my Tamon 17-35 which goes to f/4, but I usually just use it for wide shots.

There isn't anything wrong with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS other than the pixel peeping. It has it's advantages and its disadvantages. The same could be said for having the 200 prime on the body to get the quick shot, and you realize you are way too close for the shot. And by the time you switch out the lens, you missed the shot. There are always pros and cons.

I am looking forward to having this lens as it will be a great improvement over my 75-300IS, f/5.6 is way too slow for me most times, but it has served me well. I don't plan to sell it either, because there will be times that I don't want to carry that monster white L and I will choose looking more amateur and inconspicious over quality of shot.

Just my 2 cents.
--
Lyle Collins

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyleuga

The 2.8 is ideal for PJ's or sports shooters who have to bag their shot come what may and need 2.8.

There seems to be great sample variation but the lens is not what I would call sharp until f4 - 5.6. My Nikon VR is the same but I would say a tad sharper.

Canon's new f4 IS looks like a no brainer. This lens really is sharp at f4 with superb colours and contrast and just about equal to the best primes such as the 85/1.2 and the 135/2. The bokeh is not that of the 2.8 but close enough.

dwill23 said:

Why would you buy a lens w/o reading about it?

Click to expand...

I sincerly appreciate your response and would like to offer that I did read (rather extensivly) on this lens. I checked reviews and posted questions regarding the sharpness of the IS vs. non. I am well aware that at f2.8/200m this lens is consider by many to be soft. The reviews and other posters made this quite clear. I was expecting this. If you read my orignal post I stated that I look test shots at several different focal lenghts of different subjects. The problem I am having is apparent at 70m as well as 200m. It is more pronounce at 200m and I understand this is to be expected. I looked through many combinations to see if this was exclusive to f2.8/200m or if it happend at 70m/100m/145m, etc. I checked the metadata and wrote the stats down for 100 images so when I compared them in photoshop I didn't just pick one and go "oohh, that one's bad, what happend here". I was able to check f2.8/70m,100m,145m&200m at 100ISO and 400ISO. I compared these exact settings for several different images (brick wall, fence post, flowers, etc.) to see if it happened in all or simply one...trying to rule out simply being too close, DOF, etc.

I am not saying it is absolutely not due to user error (please check my responses), however it is certainly not due to lack of research. You assume this, however did not bother to ask me. I appreciate everyones responses. Each one gives me something to consider, however I do not appreciate you deciding that my concern of initial images indicated my lack of research and expctations.

I respect your post and your right to your opinion. I would ask before you assume something, simply ask. Other's have done so in the spirit of making sure I didn't miss something. Your post did no such thing.
Regards>

I think that is right too. Also, a zoom like this is all about versatility. That's the main reason I would never trade it in for the slightly superior 200mm and 135mm primes. Then again, I am no professional and am constantly amazed by the IQ I get from my zoom. Different strokes for different folks.

misha said:

I don't think that the fairly minor differences in quality that you
describe here are what the original poster is experiencing
--
Misha

Click to expand...

blackhawk13 said:

Shoot with RAW format and view in DPP. Look for excessive CA, it
will manifest it's self as thin, fine red/blue lines on the sides
of light colored objects. A white picket fence against a blue sky
for example.

Shoot at different Aps, angles and distances. Check for it. If
it's there, one or more of the lense elements is misaligned; it's
out of spec, and/or damaged. In Jpeg mod this distortion just
appears as a blur and isn't easy to distinguish from out of focus
shots.

Thank you so much for another way to check the lens and determine lens issue vs. user error. I have not tried this before and will be giving this a go. I really appreciate your time in trying to help!

Click to expand...

blackhawk13 said:

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl- I've seen this in previous posts from you...love it!

Click to expand...