70-200 F4 IS sharpness issues

[ed rader]

help you out. you could send the photos to me and i'll post them for you .

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[Priaptor]

I found the lens mediocre (for my purposes) and sent mine back. Having said that, I should say what I was using the lens for; my main goal was to use the lens above 140mm, outdoors, for action shots of my dogs playing together and with horses. This was going to compliment my incredibly excellent 24-70 F2.8. I have seen other peoples' pictures on this site, using the the 70-200 F4 IS focused on relatively still shots producing excellent results; no question. No matter what adjustments I used on this lens, I never got what I needed. I think I would have gotten better results withe the 70-200 F2.8 stopping down to F4-5.6, but I was not willing to pay the price or haul the weight. I should say that I was using the 1DS MKII.

 

[rndman]

I tested mine and the same issue here.

Looking at all over the forum I guess everyone is having this problem. So it seems more like a universal phenomenon with this lens and not issue of some copies (IMHO).

I have noticed another interesting thing while testing and I am sure this is not just my copy.

Use closest focusing distance @200mm (using tripod to be precise) till focus LED goes steady, then change zoom below 200, say 135 or 70mm and try to refocus, the focus LED blinks. To make it steady you need to move about an inch backward. Which means the closest focusing at 200mm is not same as for other zoom settings.

So there are two options

1. Exchange this lens for another (Prime may be?)
2. Pursue Canon on resolving this issue.

This seems more like a design flaw, which Canon may or may not accept and correct. every lens has something or the other issue. Till date 70-200 was considered flawless, but now we have one.

For now I am keeping this lens and may be send a mail to Canon informing this issue with reference to this forum.

Let's see how it goes...

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???

 

[rndman]

Ed,

Would you mind sharing some of your pictures @200mm f4.0 (of 70-200 f4 IS)

That 200mm sharpness issue is real bothersome.

help you out. you could send the photos to me and i'll post them
for you .

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[Kronie]

My copy is not very sharp and going back to where it came from for replacement. I've had it for about a week and today I really put it through its paces in the real world. For what I paid for this lens I’m not very impressed. I love the size and the IS but IQ is off somehow.

Another issue with my lens is that the focusing is totally inconsistent! I have some shots that are in focus and look ok and others that are way off. At first I thought I was me and just needed to get used to the lens but after today I’m sure it’s the lens.

I even have inconsistent focusing on my tripod with mirror lock up. Same thing with the resolution chart I use, some shots are decent and others are way off.

I bought this lens to replace my Sigma 70-200 but at this point the shots I get from the Sigma are better, more in focus and WAY sharper. Hopefully my replacement will be an improvement or I will just get the “macro” version of the Sigma. (I will miss the 2.8)

 

[rndman]

Another issue with my lens is that the focusing is totally
inconsistent! I have some shots that are in focus and look ok and
others that are way off. At first I thought I was me and just
needed to get used to the lens but after today I’m sure it’s the
lens.

Oops, I too was thinking that its me, but it seems lens is the culprit.

 

[PIXSurgeon]

...This lens requires two things from you:

1. A camera body to focuses precisely, with no-compromises performance. Obviously, the 20D/5D or 30D (which I own) do not fit this bill. Sorry for broken hearts here, but it is what it is.

2. When using IS on either mode, you must let it lock-on, fully and shortly before shooting begins, either in one-shot or servo, either in low or high fps modes. This is essential, if your shutter speeds are less than the actual inverse of focal-length you are using for the shot.

So far, this lens is INCREDIBLE, from pretty much any angle I look at it, on my 1D2-N body. It simply has no substitute.

Enjoy!

--

TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT' button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.

 

[mfurman]

200 mm, f/4.0 and MFD (or no more than 5 ft), please
--
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]

...This lens requires two things from you:

1. A camera body to focuses precisely, with no-compromises
performance. Obviously, the 20D/5D or 30D (which I own) do not
fit this bill. Sorry for broken hearts here, but it is what it is.

So do you mean it's the bod which is causing the inconsistent focus issue resulting in the sharpness problems?
Good to know. But how good is that for the broken hearts?

2. When using IS on either mode, you must let it lock-on, fully
and shortly before shooting begins, either in one-shot or servo,
either in low or high fps modes. This is essential, if your shutter
speeds are less than the actual inverse of focal-length you are
using for the shot.

That's a good tip. I will test this tomorrow with your tip in mind.

So far, this lens is INCREDIBLE, from pretty much any angle I look
at it, on my 1D2-N body. It simply has no substitute.

Enjoy!

--
TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT'
button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.

 

[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

 

[mfurman]

I took at least 50 shots at 200 mm, f/4.0 and MFD. It was not a 1D class camera but I would assume that I would get at least one sharp. No problems at 135 mm (incredibly sharp).

Since I noticed this problem when taking close ups of flowers (not during testing), could I please see your unprocessed shot at 200 mm, f/4.0 and MFD (or less than 5 ft).
--
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]

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/gallery/2842902#152519312

Please view them as original. 135 mm ones are typical. 200 mm ones are some of the better ones (took at least 50)
--
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

 

[PIXSurgeon]

...Just got some very nice friends, at home, today, and we took a series of their doughter (a bit shy/reserved from the cam. and lens.) I did want to use the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS, and I have a 200mm, f/4.0, 1/320sec, very close (around 1.75-2.0m), on the 1D Mark II-N body.

Just wait until I post screen-shot from C1 Pro. 3.7.7 conversion, with basically NO post-processing.

Brace yourself!

--

TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT' button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.

 

[mfurman]

By the way, my tests showed that at 2 m focusing distance things get better (at 200 mm)
--
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]

not at all. are you talking about at any distance or at 1.2m or wherever the problem supposedly is?

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[rndman]

The closest distance and longest focal (i.e. 1.2m and 200mm)

not at all. are you talking about at any distance or at 1.2m or
wherever the problem supposedly is?

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous

 

[PIXSurgeon]

...WARNING! Large (> 1MB screen-shot), from my dual-screen workstation. Left-side shows C1 with major EXIF data, and RIGHT-top shows 180mm sample, and RIGHT-bottom 200mm sample, all @f/4.0, hand-held, very little time to capture image (child in constant motion), focus had to be right from the get-go (just one chance):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/79453984/original

Please, scroll your browser's window HORIZONTALLY to see the whole image. You can see me, standing, on her eye's background reflection. MINIMAL sharpening applied, in essence.

Like these, I have a series, all with ranging focal-length distances, and I have nothing but praise Canon for bringing us the best mid-range tele-zoom in the world , as of today.

As simple as it is.

--

TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT' button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.

 

[mfurman]

I may try another copy. Mine was definitely less sharp (loss of contrast) at 200 mm and MFD than at 150 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,

Could you please check the following image. This is taken at MFD (as far as I remember) @200mm and f4.0

May be I am started to see everything soft.

Please let me know what do you think.

http://www.pbase.com/rndman/image/79460506/original

...WARNING! Large (> 1MB screen-shot), from my dual-screen
workstation. Left-side shows C1 with major EXIF data, and RIGHT-top
shows 180mm sample, and RIGHT-bottom 200mm sample, all @f/4.0,
hand-held, very little time to capture image (child in constant
motion), focus had to be right from the get-go (just one chance):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/79453984/original

Please, scroll your browser's window HORIZONTALLY to see the whole
image. You can see me, standing, on her eye's background
reflection. MINIMAL sharpening applied, in essence.

Like these, I have a series, all with ranging focal-length
distances, and I have nothing but praise Canon for bringing us the
best mid-range tele-zoom in the world , as of today.

As simple as it is.

--
TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT'
button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.

 

[FretNoMore]

"I don't see it, so it can't exist for anyone else either..."

You make a very categorical statement, as per your usual style. Unless you by "this lens" mean "my lens".

There is probably no general flaw affecting every lens out there but that doesn't rule out problems with individual lenses or a bad production batch. Very recent problems (70-300 portrait mode softness, 24-105 flare) shows you this is not unlikely at all.

Analyze each individual case and find an explanation for any perceived problem. Maybe it's user error or unreasonable expectations, a camera body issue or a problem with the lens.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *