70-200/4L sharp at 70, soft at 200

[AJohn]

...maybe there is a balance that must be achieved and that is just the nature of a zoom compared to a prime.

--
Andy (Critiques Always Welcome)
FCAS Member #120
http://imageevent.com/ajrphotos

 

[Rob P]

I'm wondering that a bit myself now, too. I hope not. I'm really happy with the lens between 70mm and 135mm (even up to probably 180mm), it's just at 200mm where things seem to get soft. I hope I don't lose performance in the wide end if/when they calibrate the long end. If it worked through the entire range as well as it does on the wide end, I'd stop thinking about upgrading to the 2.8 or 2.8 IS.

I'm a backpacker and canoe tripper and weight is very important to me, so if this lens gets corrected I'll be a very "happy camper". Sorry, that was terrible.

Cheers,
-Rob

--
http://www.pinciuc.com/photos/
You see, the thing is, I'm an absolutist. Well, kind of... in a way...

 

[Henris2]

They don't give quotes over the phone because they don't want to turn you off by their pricing.

They are a class act, however.

 

[jrscls]

My 70-200 f4L was certainly sharper on the long end, so they must vary among copies. Since I only used it at the long end, I got the 200mm f2.8 L prime instead along with a copy of the 85mm f1.8. I really like this combo.