70-200 F4 IS sharpness issues

[Mike.]

At least with my 70-200 F4 (NON-IS) the lens was not focusing correctly from "new" and was re-calibrated by a Canon Service center. Basically the lens was back focusing more than it should, a quick tweak by Canon and now it has more blades than the latest shaver...

--
-Mike

 

[Kronie]

I think.........looking at your 100% crops...........that my lens has some serious issues...........which is why its going back for replacement!

 

[mfurman]

...that you lens is better at wider end than it is at > 150 mm. You are right that here is no need to be concerned though. Mine was better than yours at 135 mm but much worse at 200 mm.

What I do not understand is that according to this test,

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

70-200 f/4.0 L IS is equally sharp (prime sharp) at 200mm as it is at 135.

--
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]

Yo be honest with you, mine seemed to have been better at 135 mm than yours. Look at my tests.
--
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]

Do you realize that there have been already a few people with less than perfect 70-200 f/4.0 L IS? It was supposed to be almost an ideal lens

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

--
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

 

[ed rader]

so are you going to try again or move on ?

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[Littlefield]

Just send it back and get another copy, photographers do it all the time with lens they think are not to their expectations.

 

[Russell]

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

See profile for gear.

 

[rndman]

All,

Please take a look at these samples and let me know if this is concern and should I get an RMA for exchange?

Also as I have mentioned somewhere in previous post, the MFD at 200mm is not the same as below it. If you make it precise at 200mm, when you zoom back to 135, the focus LED blinks and I had to move it by about half to 1 inch. Have you noticed such a thing?

@200mm 1.2 meters

http://www.pbase.com/image/79508179/original

@135mm 1.2 meters (+ that 1 or 0.5 inch)

http://www.pbase.com/image/79508224/original

Thanks in advance

Yo be honest with you, mine seemed to have been better at 135 mm
than yours. Look at my tests.
--
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]

I did not probably pay enough attention to what you are describing as some form of focus shift (probably caused by residual spherical aberrations).

As far as these two shots are concerned, 135 mm is definitely better (I usually look for the sharpness of paper scratches on a box).

I am not sure what advice to give you; it depends on your shooting style and needs. I want a lens to be sharp at its MFD to utilize its maximum magnification. That may not matter to others.

I am not sure if there is some copy to copy variation or this lens should not be used at 200 and MFD. I decided not to play the game of trying to find a better copy (mine was worse than yours).
--
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]

I think that there are some copies that may have a problem at 200 and MFD but I also think that this lens is not perfect. I mean why did they rate the minimum focusing distance as 1.2 m if other 200 lenses can only go down to 1.5 m (5ft)? Someone showed me shots from 200 mm prime at 5 ft and it was much better.
--
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]

...I had not heard of other problematic copies of this lens. This lens may not be sharp at 200 mm and MFD.
--
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

 

[rndman]

Thanks Michael,

I would also like to get a perfect lens, especially whne you are paying arm and leg (or better yet another mortgage on your home).

I am most likely returning/exchanging it. It scares me though about the exchange. Possibly it should not be the worse than this one...

Thanks again...

I did not probably pay enough attention to what you are describing
as some form of focus shift (probably caused by residual spherical
aberrations).

As far as these two shots are concerned, 135 mm is definitely
better (I usually look for the sharpness of paper scratches on a
box).

I am not sure what advice to give you; it depends on your shooting
style and needs. I want a lens to be sharp at its MFD to utilize
its maximum magnification. That may not matter to others.

I am not sure if there is some copy to copy variation or this lens
should not be used at 200 and MFD. I decided not to play the game
of trying to find a better copy (mine was worse than yours).
--
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

 

[ed rader]

good luck on your quest for the "perfect" lens .

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[Domin8]

I only find mine does this when im just inside 1.2m.. if i walk bout until im just on or outside 1.2m she locks on, focuses and shoots wihtout problem.. and images come out very clear!.. i can shoot and get these same results.. but it will be just inside the 1.2m minimum distance..
--

My Gear..

 

[Robert Wienia]

Well, I hadn't expected t start a discussion this way, but it seems there's a lot to say about the 70-200 F4 IS.

Anyway, there's also good news about this lens: meaning it's very capable of making crisp and clear pictures, as long as you stay out of the

the first is the original, just resized. the second is a 100% crop, no pp.
the third is ,cropped, resized and sharpened.

 

[Littlefield]

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=999

Their tests showed it sharp at 1.2 m . I have had no problem with mine I guess I got good copy .

 

[PapaLazarou]

I am using the Canon 1DSMKII with the 70-200 2.8 L and i am having the same problems with them.

I have been shooting wildlife and the viewfinder image is sharp when i press the shutter, but i am getting out of focus images. The shutter speeds are always above 1/800 and even up to 1/2000 with some shots, so its not camera shake. But a good 7 out of 10 shots are out of focus, everything is fine for portraits but if i try wildlife then i have problems.The camera is set to AI servo when shooting say, ducks swimming but i just keep getting bad results.

Check my post out near yours.

 

[mfurman]

I had read the review before and checked it again but I am still missing the part in which they are testing the performance at 1.2m (MFD). Could you please help?
--
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

 

[dwill23]

After all the negative posts about 70-200mm zooms, i find it crazy anyone is shocked about the lack of sharpness out of the 70-200 zooms. The post just before this is about a guy having sharpness problems with his F2.8 version.

Sure, everyone coming up from a "b" lens, going to an "a" (L) lens expects awesome quality, and compared to their old lenses most copies of any L 70-200 will be great.... but not that great....

Zooms have their limitations. In a perfect world we'd all have 3 mark III's strapped to us with 3 different focal length fixed (non zooming) lenses, which weight next to nothing, and cheap to buy.

This isn't the case so many buy zoom lenses as a trade off. And what are you trading? Image quality. Am I wrong? No. Or why would Canon and Nikon and everyone else even make fixed lenses? haha it's so simple. Just ask yourself why fixed lenses are made and why people buy them.

For the price of a 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM, you could buy the best 200mm lens canon makes, the non-zooming Ef 200mm F2.8 L USM II. Look up reviews, and most people have bought that lens to replace their soft zooms. that lens is not only sharper, if focuses WAY faster aswell. THe focus speed is the biggest difference for me. ... and the other lens to buy would be the Ef 135 F2.0 L USM.

Why are the fixed lenses so good? 9 elements of glass vs 23 elements of glass (200mm vs 70-200 is). It's easier to see/focus though 9 elements than 23! Thus sharper, and faster AF.

200mm $650
135mm $910
total: $1560

Both lenses would smoke any 70-200 at the same focal length, and the 135 is a full stop brighter, and prob the best color and background blur i've ever seen! oh yeah, and as sharp as my 300 f2.8 L IS.

I'd like to own a 70-200 F2.8 USM non-IS for weddings, but... when not shooting weddings, i'd prob use it as a paper-weight. haha

It's a trade off, if you need the zoom, don't expect it to produce the best images you've ever seen.