70-200 F4 IS sharpness issues

[Robert Wienia]

I purchased the 70-200 F4 IS two weeks ago and off course have been testing it, by taking all kinds of pictures. Allthough my first impression is that this lens is very sharp, I have soms doubts after testing it more.

I wonder if there are other users with the following problems.

At the minimum focussing distance (1,2 meters) the pictures are not as sharp as i hoped fore. That means macro will be difficult, and at least you have to crop a lot. But also clos-up pics (eyes) are clearly softer.

In the midrange, say 2 to 10 meters, the sharpness is very good (didn't notice much difference in sharpness when playing with aperture).

But when taking pictures of for example plains at the airport it seems that sharpness again is not as good as i hoped for.

I wonder if this is an issue of this lens in general or just my copy.

Fot this price I exspect to buy the lens, put it on the camera (5D and 20D) and shoot..... without asking myself, if the pics will be sharp.

It's not the first time I had to send back my gear, and that's starting to bother me.
So, what are your experiences???

 

[FretNoMore]

There are many possible explanations, some more info in the form of sample images including EXIF info would be good.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

 

[Bo Persson]

I don't have the lens yet but I agree with what you are saying "with a lens as this one you expect it to be perfect". I am a bit concerned about it. You are sure it's the lens not the camera? Of course, you are not the first one with issues.
--
Bo Persson
[email protected]
http://bopersson64.wordpress.com/
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

 

[Robert Wienia]

your'e right, samples would show the problem better.
I'll try to post soms samples later on.

 

[MauricioClaudio]

...someone calculated that the DOF at 200mm, f/4 and distance of 1.2m is very, very small. That may be the answer...

 

[Marta Franco]

Please, take a look at this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23234096
Cheers,
Marta

 

[mfurman]

I have concluded that this lens has a major problem at minimum focusing distance:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23193922

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/535249/0

--
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]

--
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

 

[M Irwin]

"This is not the case"? You mean about 1/5th of an inch is not narrow or somehow you believe the poster has some other issue??

 

[M Irwin]

No Text

 

[mfurman]

As you might have seen in others threads, some copies of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS seem to have a problem with 200 mm and close focusing range. To those who would say that "I do not need this lens at MFD", I would say: what do you need this lens for? Not for sports (too slow), not for wildlife (too short). So I believe that this lens should perform decently at its maximum magnification. Canon, as a matter of fact, specifically advertises that the lens focuses down to 1.2 m (as they say: closer than f/2.8 zoom)
--
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]

I think I see similar issue with my copy.

Is this a universal thing or only with some copies?

I have concluded that this lens has a major problem at minimum
focusing distance:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23193922

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/535249/0

--
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

 

[KRobA]

At the minimum focussing distance (1,2 meters) the pictures are not
as sharp as i hoped fore. That means macro will be difficult, and
at least you have to crop a lot. But also clos-up pics (eyes) are
clearly softer.

So, what are your experiences???

100% crops- stopping down and using at 150mm not 200mm does help though. Mine however back-focusses at close distances when stopped down......

http://www.pbase.com/kroba4/image/78835076
http://www.pbase.com/kroba4/image/78835173
http://www.pbase.com/kroba4/image/78835265
http://www.pbase.com/kroba4/image/78835313

This was taken at f/11 and 200mm with moving slightly backwards to deal with the backfocus
http://www.pbase.com/kroba4/image/79053727

 

[cityphotog]

at least!

this lens (mine at least) do show "moods". It's sharp like crazy when in the "sharp" mood. then it's soft when in the "soft" mood.

now the great Cyndi Lauper gave me this lovely close-up and this new little white one (out of pure jealousy I believe) DID find the way to ruin it.

eheh

I was a little close indeed, the AF locked the eyes (true colors indeed, her eyes I mean, and the song as well) and only thanks to her this shot is somehow decent (but not thanks to the photographer or the lens!)



Cyndi Lauper, NYC 2007

ok guys, let's step back a little bit. Now that we know.

in honor of the truth I need to include another sample I took yesterday with the same lens: stunning sharpness, scary actually: almost as a macro kind of sharpness.



Ethan Isaac (Edison): NYC Concert 2007

this lens is just like a girl (very pretty one) with moods.

LOL

but it shows pure talent, one of the best if not the best zoom in the market.

 

[Carskick]

That Cyndi Lauper one looks kind of like camera shake to me. I could definitely be wrong though.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carskick
http://picasaweb.google.com/Carskick/
http://carskick.blogspot.com/
http://s6000fd.blogspot.com/

 

[FretNoMore]

...and in good light too.

I can't think the 70-200/2.8 would have done that. ;-) ;-) ;-)

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

 

[cityphotog]

the pictures down because the entire philosophy of freewebs (my site) stays in the name itself. So basically they want more money (actually just money since I didn't pay anything yet)

Right now I need the money to buy food, so I can't afford paywebs

well, life is such a miserable thing, but no paywebs at the moment for this poor city photographer here

LOL

 

[cityphotog]

the 2.8?

hmm maybe not, actually absolutely not LOL

unless you mean at 2.8... in that case the softness will be similar. In any case since it looks like the problem is the minimum distance the 2.8 by default needs you to step back a little, so we're back to square one.


Cyndi Lauper is such a wonderful person, really. Lovely, intelligent, smart, talented and most importantly (to me) she'sone of my idols when I was young(er)

she's adorable and pretty damn good on broadway (with Alan Cumming in Threepenny).

ehy... you're actually TALKING to me again! nice... very very nice of you!

 

[ed rader]

is what foto time costs and you can purchase more bahdwidth when needed.

$24.

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[cityphotog]

playing the smarty character with me?

get lost