90D / 70-200mm (DISAPPOINTED)

[NormSL2]

Maybe I am expecting too much or maybe this used lens has a problem?

When I compare my 70-200mm F/2.8 IS ii usm to my kit lens I don't see much difference in sharpness or noise.

Aside from the faster 2.8 and better focusing I am just looking at image quality. Can anyone here discern which picture was taken with my Canon SL2 / 55-250 f/4-5.6 stm kit lens and my brand new 90D / 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II?

The 70-200 (lower picture) is at its sharpest aperture while the kit lens (top) is wide open and a stop higher ISO.

Both pictures are f/5.6, 1/500. One is ISO 200 @ 180mm and the other is ISO 100 @ 142mm. The photos below are @ 200%. The SL2 (top) picture was taken with a low sun, lower picture bright mixed cloud.

Am I expecting too much for the extra $2,700.00 I spent on camera and lens, or do you think the gold standard lens (or my 32MP 90D) has an issue?

Yes, I know I am pixel peeping, but I have spent a lot of money and want to make sure the equipment is working as it should. I have also seen some 70-200mm shots @ 200% tack sharp @ f/8 150mm. You could see every poor in the models skin.

 

[Andy01]

Personally I think that the photo of the white plane (with 70-200L) is noticeably sharper and more detailed (as it should be) than the Rebel photo of the yellow plane. The difference is far more obvious in the full size images than the crops.

It looks pretty good to me :-D

Colin

PS. If you want people to guess which image comes from 90D, you should strip out the exif.

 

[NormSL2]

The post started out with just the two cropped that have none but I decided to include the original files. Cheers.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Maybe I am expecting too much or maybe this used lens has a problem?

When I compare my 70-200mm F/2.8 IS ii usm to my kit lens I don't see much difference in sharpness or noise.

Aside from the faster 2.8 and better focusing I am just looking at image quality. Can anyone here discern which picture was taken with my Canon SL2 / 55-250 f/4-5.6 stm kit lens and my brand new 90D / 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II?

The 70-200 (lower picture) is at its sharpest aperture while the kit lens (top) is wide open and a stop higher ISO.

Both pictures are f/5.6, 1/500. One is ISO 200 @ 180mm and the other is ISO 100 @ 142mm. The photos below are @ 200%. The SL2 (top) picture was taken with a low sun, lower picture bright mixed cloud.

Am I expecting too much for the extra $2,700.00 I spent on camera and lens, or do you think the gold standard lens (or my 32MP 90D) has an issue?

- A large part of what you pay for with an f/2.8 zoom is the ability to shoot at f/2.8 (!). Obviously you don't get any benefit from this when you choose to shoot at f/5.6.

- The 55-250 STM is well known for punching above its weight, it's a very decent lens for a bargain price. It's only f/5.6, it's crop sensor only, focusing is a bit slow, and build quality is light and not weatherproof, but optically it's not bad at all.

Despite the above, the white plane looks considerably sharper to me! I am quite sure your gold standard lens is performing as it should.

BTW don't use 200% crops, because doing so introduces another variable, the upsampling algorithm. Leave them as shot, and if anybody wants to view at 200% they are free to do so.

Yes, I know I am pixel peeping, but I have spent a lot of money and want to make sure the equipment is working as it should. I have also seen some 70-200mm shots @ 200% tack sharp @ f/8 150mm. You could see every poor in the models skin.

It's possible they were sharper, if taken under more controlled conditions with ideal lighting etc. Also some subjects, those which have more detail and contrast, can look subjectively sharper because there is more to see. Finally processing can make a significant difference.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/
or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/

 

[robbert100]

1/500 s isn’t enough to freeze the movement of these small flying planes doing at least a 100km/h.
I agree with Steve for all his remarks about the use and quality of both lenses.

--

Best regards,
Rob
www.namaqualand.wordpress.com

 

[jrkliny]

If you want to do a serious comparison, you need to shoot the same subject under identical conditions. That means starting with some sort of "studio" shot with a sturdy tripod, with exact liveview focusing, with mirror lock up and a cable release.

Under those conditions, I think you will see some differences but they will be very minor. If you make prints, even large ones, I doubt viewers will be able to tell the difference.

Your concern will be proven. You can spend a lot of money for only a slight improvement in image quality.

Next if you can figure out a good test, you might find that the more expensive lens focuses faster. I would not count on being able to determine the difference. Next you can decide by experience which you would prefer to use. For me the smaller, lighter lens would win.

Finally the 70-200 will shoot a wider aperture than the 55-250. If that is important to you then is the cost worth the difference?

Of course there is another big difference. The 55-250 cannot be used on a full frame camera. So you then need to buy a FF camera put on the 70-200 and compare it with a cropped sensor camera with the 55-250. The first issue will be reach. The cropped sensor camera will have twice the relative focal length. The gearhead will tell you the image quality is better for the full frame camera with an L lens. Unfortunately the difference vanishes when the full frame images needs to be cropped by a factor of 2.

I have been shooting Rebel cameras for years. I only have one L lens, the 100-400 and it is not at all impressive. Nor has it proven to be better made. After not a lot of use, I just had to have a $500 repair. When it comes to photography, the gear is only worth about 10% compared to the photographer's skill at 100%.

I guess my opinion is not going to be well received on a gear oriented forum, but I think my opinion is backed up by the facts. Very expensive gear provides only very minimal improvements in image quality.

 

[DavidArmenPhoto]

If you want to do a serious comparison, you need to shoot the same subject under identical conditions. That means starting with some sort of "studio" shot with a sturdy tripod, with exact liveview focusing, with mirror lock up and a cable release.

Under those conditions, I think you will see some differences but they will be very minor. If you make prints, even large ones, I doubt viewers will be able to tell the difference.

Your concern will be proven. You can spend a lot of money for only a slight improvement in image quality.

Next if you can figure out a good test, you might find that the more expensive lens focuses faster. I would not count on being able to determine the difference. Next you can decide by experience which you would prefer to use. For me the smaller, lighter lens would win.

Finally the 70-200 will shoot a wider aperture than the 55-250. If that is important to you then is the cost worth the difference?

Of course there is another big difference. The 55-250 cannot be used on a full frame camera. So you then need to buy a FF camera put on the 70-200 and compare it with a cropped sensor camera with the 55-250. The first issue will be reach. The cropped sensor camera will have twice the relative focal length. The gearhead will tell you the image quality is better for the full frame camera with an L lens. Unfortunately the difference vanishes when the full frame images needs to be cropped by a factor of 2.

I have been shooting Rebel cameras for years. I only have one L lens, the 100-400 and it is not at all impressive. Nor has it proven to be better made. After not a lot of use, I just had to have a $500 repair. When it comes to photography, the gear is only worth about 10% compared to the photographer's skill at 100%.

I guess my opinion is not going to be well received on a gear oriented forum, but I think my opinion is backed up by the facts. Very expensive gear provides only very minimal improvements in image quality.

Agreed.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

As others have said, most of what you're paying for with the 70-200 F2.8L II IS is build quality, weather sealing, fast constant aperture, fast AF, and full frame image circle. Given that the difference in price between the F2.8 and F4 versions of this lens is upwards of $1000, you pay a lot for a stop or two difference. I have this lens, and love it. It is a superb sports lens (I use it mostly for track). At F5.6, it's not a lot sharper (maybe just a little) than my 18-135 STM or 18-150 EF-M. But I wouldn't expect it to be. Those lenses are already plenty sharp enough. When you want to shoot fast runners on a track in fading light, there's simply no comparison between F2.8 and F5.6.

 

[TK lp]

Have both lenses been calibrated to the 90D?

 

[SkySpades]

Look at the letters and numbers on the back side of the fuselage, the 70-200 is significantly sharper than the 55-200. Not that planes are a great sharpness test as there's little in the way of micro details such as hair or skin pores on human, or feathers on a bird that will be better resolved with a sharper lens.

Looks like the 90D and 70-200 is a good combo.

 

[Robert Krawitz]

I agree that the white plane (70-200) looks markedly sharper. But while I'm not sure it's an issue here, I think 1/500 is too slow of a shutter speed for the subject. Assuming that the plane is moving at 120 MPH, that's about 175 FPS, so in 1/500 second, it moves about 4 inches -- and you have much finer detail than that in the shot. I'd suggest you'd do a lot better at ISO 400 and 1/2000, or even ISO 8000 and 1/4000.

The 1/focal length rule doesn't apply to a rapidly moving subject (not to mention that it really isn't very good on contemporary sensors and lenses). Better off with higher ISO.

 

[NormSL2]

1/500 s isn’t enough to freeze the movement of these small flying planes doing at least a 100km/h.
I agree with Steve for all his remarks about the use and quality of both lenses.

Hi Rob,

I am panning with the planes with option 2 (panning) stability activated on the lens. I have got sharp pics with my STM down to 1/140. I regularly shoot between 1/250 and 1/320 to introduce prop blur. A plane with a frozen prop I think is less interesting.

Thanks for the input everyone. I needed some other eyes on this as mine aren't what they use to be.

I sold the SL2 and bought the 90D and the 70-200 for the following reasons and hoped the picture sharpness would also significantly improve;

Fast Focus acquisition

f/2.8

Increased focus points and better focusing system and most of all, the 10/fps

Far more features, ease and quickness of adjustments while shooting

I bought the gear primarily to improve my sports and action photography indoors and out.

 

[jp4]

I agree that the white plane (70-200) looks markedly sharper. But while I'm not sure it's an issue here, I think 1/500 is too slow of a shutter speed for the subject. Assuming that the plane is moving at 120 MPH, that's about 175 FPS, so in 1/500 second, it moves about 4 inches -- and you have much finer detail than that in the shot. I'd suggest you'd do a lot better at ISO 400 and 1/2000, or even ISO 8000 and 1/4000.

The 1/focal length rule doesn't apply to a rapidly moving subject (not to mention that it really isn't very good on contemporary sensors and lenses). Better off with higher ISO.

Or is that about .4 inches, or even .35 inches?

 

[NormSL2]

I agree that the white plane (70-200) looks markedly sharper. But while I'm not sure it's an issue here, I think 1/500 is too slow of a shutter speed for the subject. Assuming that the plane is moving at 120 MPH, that's about 175 FPS, so in 1/500 second, it moves about 4 inches -- and you have much finer detail than that in the shot. I'd suggest you'd do a lot better at ISO 400 and 1/2000, or even ISO 8000 and 1/4000.

The 1/focal length rule doesn't apply to a rapidly moving subject (not to mention that it really isn't very good on contemporary sensors and lenses). Better off with higher ISO.

For all the Rob's, I am panning with the plane. For example these ones @ 1/200 and 1/250.

These shots are practice and experience. I know they are uninteresting, just developing my skills, concentrating on focus and prop blur.

 

[mailman88]

What's up with the 200% crop pic? You're not going to get a good quality pic comparison like that.

Here's what I would do...shoot f/8, 1/640sec and use center point focus. Then compare your results

 

[NormSL2]

This one is 1/40 with my SL2 and 55-250 STM. I missed focus but its close. These are the kinds of shots I am hoping the 90D and the 70-200 will help me nail.

 

[Andy01]

I agree that the white plane (70-200) looks markedly sharper. But while I'm not sure it's an issue here, I think 1/500 is too slow of a shutter speed for the subject. Assuming that the plane is moving at 120 MPH, that's about 175 FPS, so in 1/500 second, it moves about 4 inches -- and you have much finer detail than that in the shot. I'd suggest you'd do a lot better at ISO 400 and 1/2000, or even ISO 8000 and 1/4000.

The 1/focal length rule doesn't apply to a rapidly moving subject (not to mention that it really isn't very good on contemporary sensors and lenses). Better off with higher ISO.

Or is that about .4 inches, or even .35 inches?

Nope, about 4 inches - the maths is correct.

Colin

 

[jp4]

I agree that the white plane (70-200) looks markedly sharper. But while I'm not sure it's an issue here, I think 1/500 is too slow of a shutter speed for the subject. Assuming that the plane is moving at 120 MPH, that's about 175 FPS, so in 1/500 second, it moves about 4 inches -- and you have much finer detail than that in the shot. I'd suggest you'd do a lot better at ISO 400 and 1/2000, or even ISO 8000 and 1/4000.

The 1/focal length rule doesn't apply to a rapidly moving subject (not to mention that it really isn't very good on contemporary sensors and lenses). Better off with higher ISO.

Or is that about .4 inches, or even .35 inches?

Nope, about 4 inches - the maths is correct.

Colin

My bad.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

For all the Rob's, I am panning with the plane. For example these ones @ 1/200 and 1/250.

With the panning shots in the OP, with the 70-200, did you have IS engaged, and if so, which setting?

 

[Andy01]

For all the Rob's, I am panning with the plane. For example these ones @ 1/200 and 1/250.

With the panning shots in the OP, with the 70-200, did you have IS engaged, and if so, which setting?

OP said above IS was engaged and in Mode 2 I believe.

Colin