Reading mode: Light Dark

Is my Sony 70-200 SSM a lemon?

Go to last post
I also have some problems with my Sony 70-200 SSM G. It is not consistent. Sometimes I get great sharp images and sometimes I get really soft images.

I noticed that in my copy the connection of the lens to the camera is a bit loose. All the other lenses are very tight. So I guess this is the reason.

Another reason for soft pictures can be the very shallow DOF. If the focus is not perfect, the image is blurry. It is enough to have a small movement from the moment you press half-way (to lock the focus) to the moment you press all the way (to take the picture), and you are out of focus.

However, here is 100% crop image taken with this lens at 200mm f/2.8 around 3 meters away:



I think it is sharp.
--
http://rovhazman.smugmug.com/?preview=1
 
This information is disappointing to me. I have a theater gig coming up and was thinking of possibly getting me this lense. However, based the images below none of them have the sharpness that I'd prefer when shooting at 2.8

http://www.pbase.com/image/95463302
http://www.pbase.com/image/95462751
http://www.pbase.com/image/95463293
http://www.pbase.com/image/95504420
http://www.pbase.com/image/89771485
http://www.pbase.com/image/95463274
http://www.pbase.com/image/95463291

Even this one shot at 2.8 at 1/250s (which should be fast enough) is very soft.

I don't know if these are hand held or too slow of a shutter speed or but one thing I do know is that they are not sharp. I'd be really disappointed if these are the best that I could provide to a client.

I can't help but wonder what if these would be sharper if they could be shot using the hyperfocal setting for 2.8.

Can anyone provide any clean/crisp/sharp images in a theater setting using the 70 - 200G?
--
Ivan
http://www.ivanwatkins.com
 
Shutter speeds in these are indicated at no faster than 1/60 and as slow as 1/6. That makes it difficult to draw too many conclusions.
 
That's very disappointing. I read such good things about this lens. What is the point of paying so much money for a fast lens if you can get good results wide open? My beercan ($150.00) gives good results if it's stopped down.
 
Darrell52 said:
That's very disappointing. I read such good things about this lens.
What is the point of paying so much money for a fast lens if you can
get good results wide open? My beercan ($150.00) gives good results
if it's stopped down.
Click to expand...
I think this can be simplied to two points.

1. You're right. It should be good wide open. Most are. Some apparently aren't. Don't risk buying this one used, since there appear to be QC issues and/or bad samples...and there's probably a good reason why someone would sell such an arguably good lens.

(I've seen a copy that was soft wide open).

2. The method of testing should be irrelevant. If any given user can compare their lenses to one another and show that a $200 lens performs better than a $2000 lens, chances are the $2000 lens is bum.

Greg
 
The only reason that wanted the 200mm 2.8 was because I wanted to get the reach in low light without having to go to ISO 1600 and above just to accommodate a stopped down aperture. It seems like a waste to spend that much on a lens but you can't use the entire range.

What are our options? Despite the A700 being a great camera I don't feel comfortable going above ISO 1600 and I don't want to have to noise ninja everything either.. but that is an option........I guess.

Do we have a lens for Sony Mount that is 200mm, 2.8 and is proven to be consistently sharp wide open for each lens?
--
Ivan
http://www.ivanwatkins.com
 
The Minolta 200mm 2.8 is a classic prime lens, and primes are almost always sharper than their zoom brethren. However, with APS-C cameras, maybe you should consider the CZ 135mm 1.8 lens? I know that Two Truths has great success with that lens in lowlight, theater situations, and you'll get over a stop more light with it than the 2.8 lenses. When I'm in the rare instance of shooting lowlight theater subjects, I have much more success with my 1.4 primes than my 2.8 zooms. Cheers! -d
 
What about a used Minolta 80-200? They seem to get good results. The only issue I have seen is a rotating front element.
 
Darrell52 said:
What about a used Minolta 80-200? They seem to get good results. The
only issue I have seen is a rotating front element.
Click to expand...
Mine is close enough to the 70-200SSM in IQ to make me not upgrade. Plus, the focusing is as fast (maybe faster)

Yes, it's not as usuable with CPL...and the hood is not as attractive. ;-)

Also, it won't take the APO Teleconverters. So if you plan to use TC's, it may be worth getting the SSM.

Greg
 
I've had my Sony 70-200 since day one. Is yours a brand new purchase. If so, I would think of returning it to Sony or whomever, at their expense. Based on my own experience with my first copy of the 24-70Z, it looks like your lens might have a centering defect. It's too expensive to be a lemon.

Of course, attempt to rule out other culprits, such as the camera, back-focusing, DOF, etc.

--
Best,
Christopher
 
This is a very good suggestion. I had never thought of using just primes but it may work in this case because in the theater I'd hope that I shouldn't have to zoom with my feet a lot. I'll have to see how this pans out...

Thanks
--
Ivan
http://www.ivanwatkins.com
 
Yeah, it's kind of a balance between using ISO 640 and possibly needing a bit of a crop (with the 1.x primes,) or using ISO 1600 without the need to crop (with the 2.8 zooms.) Which will give you the best overall result? Now you see why having both zooms and primes can be advantageous, although darned expensive :)
 
I am using Zeiss 135/1.8 with great success in very dim environments and it is SHARP even wide open. I am also using 85/1.4 with the same very good results, but it really picks sharpness from 2.0 (not as Zeiss, which you can use right from 1.8). You can look at my gallery for some low light concert shoots and there is really LOW light there is some.

Having said that, I also used Minolta 70-200/2.8 G, when I needed the reach. It is not that sharp wide open (2.8), but picks stopped down even a little and gives you the reach and flexibility of a zoom, so I would not hesitate using it at concerts if there is a little light...
headofdestiny said:
Yeah, it's kind of a balance between using ISO 640 and possibly
needing a bit of a crop (with the 1.x primes,) or using ISO 1600
without the need to crop (with the 2.8 zooms.) Which will give you
the best overall result? Now you see why having both zooms and
primes can be advantageous, although darned expensive :)
Click to expand...
--
Some of my work: http://www.pbase.com/papasha
 
So Greg, I take it you own a Minolta 80-200. Are your results wide open at 200MM similar to those posted above, particularly the cereal boxes?
 
Darrell52 said:
So Greg, I take it you own a Minolta 80-200. Are your results wide
open at 200MM similar to those posted above, particularly the cereal
boxes?
Click to expand...
I don't recall seeing any real degradation at 200mm wide open. I've tested it against a 70-210 2.8 Sigma and it was better. It's also better than my beercan of course.

But then, I haven't given it the third degree grueling test, because there's nowhere to go if I find any flaws, right? ;-) No other real options since the SSM isn't better enough for the cost, and I don't want a Sigma.

I have the Tokina 100-300/4 which i need to compare against it, but I'm pretty sure the Tokina will be inferior.

Greg
 
Papasha,

I checked out your work and that 135/1.8 is really nice. I'd be happy getting that type of sharpness/clarity. I even saw one picture where you had to shoot at 1/60, F2.0, ISO 3200 and it looked great. I didn't really see any noise issues did you run those through noise ninja? Shot raw or jpg?

Thanks for providing me with better examples.

Ivan
Papasha said:
headofdestiny said:
Yeah, it's kind of a balance between using ISO 640 and possibly
needing a bit of a crop (with the 1.x primes,) or using ISO 1600
without the need to crop (with the 2.8 zooms.) Which will give you
the best overall result? Now you see why having both zooms and
primes can be advantageous, although darned expensive :)
Click to expand...
Some of my work: http://www.pbase.com/papasha
Click to expand...
--
Ivan
http://www.ivanwatkins.com
 
Here's another test that I hope is a bit more scientific.

Procedure followed:

1. Tripod mounted with SSS off
2. Camera/lens leveled
3. printed pages flush with the wall

4. lens plane perpendicular with the wall-done with a spool of thread with the spool flat against the wall and thread pulled and lined up with the center lines on the lens
5. pictures made with 2 second timer and flash bounced off of ceiling.

full image at 2.8



full image at f4



f2.8 upper left



f4



Center f2.8



f4



f2.8 lower right



f4



After this test, this might be a bigger issue with my lens. Either the right side is sharper or I messed up the test and the lens is not actually perpendicular with the wall.
f2.8 upper left



f2.8 lower right



f4 upper left



f4 lower right



I want to make sure of these results, so I will re run this test on another wall and reset everything up again. I will not have time again today so I will do this on Saturday.

Comments on the results or the setup?
 
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