is this 70-200 f2.8 GM as sharp as it should be?

maybe my expectations were too high? when zoom to 100%, the pictures just don't look crisp for some reason.

At least one eye looks very sharp in these images. Is that the effect you were aiming for?

Andrew

Thanks. I was just trying to get one eye in focus as a test.

maybe I am paranoid. telephoto is tough to shoot. my results are just not as good as what I see from others. could be my skill

jor23 said:

Thanks. I was just trying to get one eye in focus as a test.

maybe I am paranoid. telephoto is tough to shoot. my results are just not as good as what I see from others. could be my skill

Click to expand...

At that subject distance at 200mm f2.8, depth of field is pretty small.

If you want to test the lens, maybe you need a flat target a bit further away.

In terms of eye focus, I'd take the win.

Andrew

Thanks.

I'd suggest to do a such test on tripod in low light or outdoor under sufficient ambient light if convenient in hand-held. Personally I tested my new lenses at my test site. I know many test indoor against resolution chart. But I found it's more meaningful outdoor from a bit distance to resemble in real-world scenes, and less subject to camera not aligning properly from much closer distance.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4715416?page=2#forum-post-67085633

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Unless your intended use for the lens is cat eye photography, I would go where you plan on using your lens and do a series of photographs - 20-30- then download them and evaluate every one. If your results aren't what you expect, do it again. Testing in the manner you are going to be shooting in is, for me, the most important way to test. If you never use a tripod, then a tripod for testing is not necessary or a good idea. Also, as stated previously, if you are going to shoot close-up at f2.8, you aren't going to get much depth of field. If you want to maximize your DPF stop down to 5.6 or f8. If you need/want your lens to be tack-sharp at f2.8, then test at f2.8. I would go to your local camera store and (take your body) and evaluate another identical lens and see if your sample is softer than the other. If they are the same, and your still not satisfied, try a different lens. For me evaluating equipment is far more vast than taking a couple of pictures of one type of subject.

I'm intentionally not evaluating your photo because on-line photo sharpness evaluation is pointless.

--
It's just my educated opinion. Don't get bent out of shape.
Steve

I downloaded sample images from dpreview here. When viewed at 100%, they don’t look tack sharp either.



i just want to know if my expectation was not realistic.

jor23 said:

I downloaded sample images from dpreview here. When viewed at 100%, they don’t look tack sharp either.

i just want to know if my expectation was not realistic.

Click to expand...

I uploaded my RAW samples at my test sites in the link below. You can download for a reference. I usually apply my default +40 sharpening in Lr for a judgement, again to resemble how I use in real world. I am very salified in my copy that meets my expectation after read many reviews.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fqXs5wZ5uWpPsynmgRYrLlYM9IvP4KU-?usp=sharing

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Looks perfectly sharp on the left eye, and how I know? Because the reflection in the eye is very sharp.

Thanks. Maybe my expectations were unrealistically high. I was hoping to see tack sharp images at 100% zoom.

I am going to make another post, but what's your experience with 1.4x extender?

jor23 said:

Thanks. Maybe my expectations were unrealistically high. I was hoping to see tack sharp images at 100% zoom.

I am going to make another post, but what's your experience with 1.4x extender?

Click to expand...

You can check my samples in 100%. I added default +40 sharpening in Lr and posted in full size below. To me it's very sharp. I am not sure what is expectation of tack sharpness?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4715416?page=2#forum-post-67085633

As for 1.4x TC, I did have a few test shots in above link but I'd do more test when having a chance. The weather is not ideal in my area recently, hazy very humid with a bit air pollution from Canadian wildfire.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

I am kind of regretting buying the 1.4x. it's a hassle to put it on and take it off. the magnification is, well, not so substantial. and I can tell the degradation in image quality.

might try to sell it and get some money back....

jor23 said:

I am kind of regretting buying the 1.4x. it's a hassle to put it on and take it off. the magnification is, well, not so substantial. and I can tell the degradation in image quality.

might try to sell it and get some money back....

Click to expand...

My copy of 1.4x TC works well with 100-400 GM and 70-200 GM II (even on original mark I that I owned over one year). It's sharper than if I cropped to the same 1.4x on the same export size, without losing resolution, DR and high ISO etc. You know when you cropped to 1.4x, it's same as you shoot from 1.4x crop portion of sensor, slightly better than APS-C mode but compromised in entire IQ spectrum.

Sure, need a bit time to mount/unmount. But usually I mounted in specific scenario and will stay in until to a very different scenario. Such as I have many BIF shots with 100-400 GM+1.4x TC in the Ataractic cruise trip when crossing the Drake Passage. I didn't carry 200-600 G as would be a bit too bulky in zodiac for example where I didn't use 1.4x TC in landscape photos as 400mm is long enough. From my impression but I'd be interested to do a test, 70-200 GM II+1.4x should be as sharp as 100-400mm in 100-280mm FL. The combo will substitute 100-400 GM in landscape oriented trips going forward. I have carried 100-400 GM in many such trips in the past. 2.0x TC will be a very different story that from what I have seen, only works well on super-tele prime, 400 GM and 600 GM. Personally I am still waiting 500 GM (or 600 GM, largely I don't have much chance to use it anyway until retired). Then I'd get 2.0x TC.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Do you shoot wide open with the TC?

I am running a few more tests, but the results I got now are not quite promising. On my a7RIII, I can crop to the same size and pictures are sharper (less haloing) without the TC.

jor23 said:

Do you shoot wide open with the TC?

Click to expand...

My two samples in that link were taken at f4.0 wide open with 1.4x TC if you checked. But I will find a chance to do more tests thoroughly.

jor23 said:

I am running a few more tests, but the results I got now are not quite promising. On my a7RIII, I can crop to the same size and pictures are sharper (less haloing) without the TC.

Click to expand...

You might have a sort of lemon copy? From what I have read and seen from reviews, 70-200 GM II should still be petty sharp with 1.4x TC but not with 2.0x TC that also affects contrast quite noticeably.