Reading mode: Light Dark

any unhappy 70-200 f/4 IS owners ?

Go to last post
Paul Dold said:
Anyone else had build problems?
Click to expand...
Not as such, but i also notices that the zoom ring of the IS version is not as smooth as the zoom mechanism of my "old" 70-200 Non IS, but i suppose the reason for that is the environment sealing... one other thing, IS is quite loud compared to the IS of the 17-85 for example.... i occasionally get front focussed images at 200 mm and longer distances, but i´m not really sure if the lens or my 20D is to blame...
Kusie
 
Done some more tests on the 2nd copy of this lens and yes, at 1.2 m and 200mm it does SEEM somewhat soft albeit that it is tack sharp at focal length ~ 150 mm and 1.2 m, not at all far off my 150mm EX macro. At 1.5 m it seems to do better getting very good at > 2 m.

Is this a general phenomenum with this lens? I dont remember the first copy having this "issue" but it had to be returned due to a focus motor issue- cant be sure???? (My 70-200 2.8 IS (sold) was fine at minimum focus/ 200mm).
 
Mine is prime sharp at 135 mm (f/4.0 and minimum focusing distance) and very bad at 200 mm (again minimum focusing distance). I have not got a single sharp shot at 200 mm when closer than 5 feet (1.5 m)
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
mfurman said:
Mine is prime sharp at 135 mm (f/4.0 and minimum focusing distance)
and very bad at 200 mm (again minimum focusing distance). I have
not got a single sharp shot at 200 mm when closer than 5 feet (1.5
m)
Click to expand...
Michael,

can you show an example ( crop?) off such a photo? While i admit that it´s not THAT sharp at minimum focus distance, i do get acceptable results ...

just one example, a stupid test photo at 200mm, f/4 and minimum focus distance, handheld, developed from RAW with Lightroom and 20D default setting: sharpness 25 (out of 100):

Resized pic:



100% crop:



Is your copy worse?
Regdards,
Kusie
 
"The min. focus distance is 1.2m".

I would suspect that at 1.7m, unless you are measuring that distance accuratetly, you getting a bit too close for the optics.

Also, with this proximity, focal length & f-stop, you might be getting focus errors.

My copy works great, but to be honest, don't use it that much in close

Dan
--
'A bad idea in search of a good cause is..
just a bad idea' ... me
 
I was thinking of uploading some pictures (and I will do it later) but the difference in sharpness between 200 mm and 135 was more than I have ever seen in any tests. It was only at the closest focusing distance. Yours look fine.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
I specifically moved away to 1.3 m. The focus locked (I use * for focus), I did not move and I repeated that > 20 times (refocusing every time). At 135 mm the lens is scary sharp. I first noticed that doing flower close-up photos: my 85 f/1.8 (at f/2.2) showed consistently sharp results (at 0.9 m) and it was too much for me to see that there was not sharpness in 20+ pictures taken with 70-200 f/4.0 L IS at 200 mm and f/4.0 or f/5.0 (but only at focusing distance
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
I just picked (without even looking much) one for 135 and the other for 200 mm.

There were some worse for 200 mm for sure (and probably better for 135 mm)

--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
if i shot something close up and it was too soft i'd assume i was too close.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous
 
Were you hand holding the shots, cuz it looks to me that you are not even with the image plane...but in any case the 200mm shot is definitely not good. I suspect you are at an optical limit there. What happens if you move back say 3ft?
--
http://www.davidlozoya.com
 
They were shot (many images) at 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 m

At 2.2 m (7-8 feet) it is getting better but my point is that I want to have good image quality at maximum magnification. Did you see shots at 135 mm?
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
I think someone has mentioned this already - why not use a macro lens? Seems that you want macro capabilities out of a lens not designed for that. If your images are tack sharp say using 200mm at 10ft then you simply have run into an optical design limitation with the lens. Also it sounds like you may be ready to dump the lens for another copy....that actually may be a good idea as Canon is known to put out bad stuff

Really hard to say whether your issue is one of operator error or one of optical design limits or simply a bad copy. I would highly recommend a tripod in all test cases and ensure that the image plane is parallel to the camera imager plane. Once you get those variables straight (no pun intended) then you can verify whether you have a bad copy. My hunch is that you have run into a design limit.
--
http://www.davidlozoya.com
 
I wonder what the possible error or tolerance is in the lens for minimum focus?

Because of this, I also wonder how you could get focus lock if the image was that out of focus?

Certainly bears repeating the experment with a tripod and in .1meter steps.

Have you contacted Canon about this?

Dan

--
'A bad idea in search of a good cause is..
just a bad idea' ... me
 
This problem exists till at least 1.5 m focusing distance
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
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