70-200 F4 IS sharpness issues

[Tarpon6]

Looks sharp to me. There are out of focus areas because of the depth of field, but the in focus area looks very sharp.
--
Dan

Canon EOS Rebel XT 350D * Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM * Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM * Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM * Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM * Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II * Canon EF 50mm 1.8 * Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro DG * Canon 580 EX * Kata HB-207 Backpack.

http://www.pbase.com/drimar

 

[Tarpon6]

No one should be claiming there is a problem without doing a controlled test. Tripod mounted, IS off, mirror lockup, static object, carefully measured distance, remote shutter release. Running around taking handheld shots at what you think is 1.2 meters proves nothing.

Photographers like to think they have great technique and that it must be the lens, but often it is them, and camera shake is the culprit.

I have tested my lens and do not have this problem. I went further and used extension tubes to get inside 1.2m and do not have the problem.

People who say they random sharpness issues most likely have technique lapses- bad light, camera shake, small aperture, low shutter speed etc..
--
Dan

Canon EOS Rebel XT 350D * Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM * Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM * Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM * Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM * Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II * Canon EF 50mm 1.8 * Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro DG * Canon 580 EX * Kata HB-207 Backpack.

http://www.pbase.com/drimar

 

[PIXSurgeon]

...My findings are just a vivid echo of what you see here:

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

Nothing else, nothing more.

This lens is simply incredible . People really need to make sure, first, that they truly know how their equipment works, what real limitations govern its actual performance (what you can really do or not with it), and experiment carefully , before going into full-production.

This lens' IS requires you to HOLD STEADY and allow for FULL engagement (for just a brief moment), pretty much under any condition, especially when shooting on the long side. Furthermore, it also requires you to be conservative when shooting things in motion, as you NEED to swtich IS modes, in order to avoid estimation errors (and bluring).

As for optical performance, this is, again, pretty much the best mid-range tele-zoom produced in the world, today. Without any doubt, any question.

Enjoy!

"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 *

--

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

 

[mfurman]

No one should be claiming there is a problem without doing a
controlled test. Tripod mounted, IS off, mirror lockup, static
object, carefully measured distance, remote shutter release.
Running around taking handheld shots at what you think is 1.2
meters proves nothing.

I am not certain if I agree completely. I cannot accept that the lens would perform well in a test case, you have described, and then may not work "in real life". I have tested every lens after I got it. It is usually done on test targets that I know so I even do not have to compare my results. I tested all the lens in my profile

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/

using the same targets.

In case of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS, I did not test it on the first day - I just went to my favourite location to do some shooting. I bought this lens for its maximum magnification and specific focal length (otherwise I would have bought another 135-200 mm lens). I took a number of pictures of flowers using 85 f/1.8 lens and my new 70-200. Both sets were done at the focusing distance less than 1.5 m. I could not find a single picture (out of at least 50) where any of the small flowers (at different distances) would be sharp. My 85 f/1.8 performed well (at the focusing distance of 0.9 m and f/2.2.

Then I started to test the lens.

I got (average out of 30 shots) this for 135 mm:

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/gallery/2842902#152315863-O-LB

and this (one of the best of 50 shots) for 200 mm

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/gallery/2842902#152748740-O-LB

I do not care how this would be on a tripod with MLU etc. The shutter speed was high, IS was working, I was steady and I locked the focus with . That is how I expect a lens to work and this is the same way I tested my 85 at f/2.0 and 100-400 L at f/5.6 (400 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

 

[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 read this, Photozone enthusiastic review, all the reviews on FM etc.

That is why I bought this lens (not for its zooming capabilities but sharpness and MFD). I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect that the lens is going to performed well at its MFD in the whole zooming range. If it is not the case why would I buy a zoom? By the way, I am not a novice.
--
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

 

[Tarpon6]

Why did you resist performing a controlled test? How do you know you were at 1.2m if you did not measure? Handholding at 200mm is different than handholding at 85mm. You can never eliminate the possibility of camera shake without a tripod. You can not remove the possibility without a proper test no matter how good of a photographer you are.

When you uncover the possibility of a problem with a lens in everyday shooting, the first thing you need to do is remove yourself from the list of possible issues. It takes 5 minutes or less to to mount a lens on a tripod and measure the distance. You spent much more time than that posting on various message boards. Your lens could have a back or front focus issue, which becomes more obvious at close distances and large apertures.

I have no doubt that your lens may have a problem. I think it is likely to be a focus issue, and your lens is out of spec is some way. But if you are going to post on multiple message boards about a lens problem, and stir up others to think they have a problem, why not perfom a proper test, not only to increase your credibility, but to guide others to test in the same way.

Look, we have a guy in this thread who appears to have a sharp copy, but feels his lens is only sharp when it wants to be. He thinks he has the same problem you have, but in all likelyhood his issue is user error. Lenses are not soft and sharp when they feel like it..

There are also plenty of others who do not have this issue. The likelhood of an inherent issue with this lens seems unlikely. Recent examples like the 24-105 flare issue and the 70-300 portrait issue showed up in all copies.

--
Dan

Canon EOS Rebel XT 350D * Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM * Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM * Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM * Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM * Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II * Canon EF 50mm 1.8 * Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro DG * Canon 580 EX * Kata HB-207 Backpack.

http://www.pbase.com/drimar

 

[PIXSurgeon]

If it is not the case why would I buy a zoom?
By the way, I am not a novice.

...and never said that. And you are definitely not a novice. However, at such close distances, your cam's AF may have as much impact on final image quality as the lens itself. Just keep that in mind.

My 0.02c

--

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

 

[mfurman]

I cannot perform any "proper test" because I do not have the lens any more. I am not sure why it is escaping you that I had tested other lenses such as 100-400 L in similar circumstances without too much of a problem. I do not think that DOF for 85 mm lens at f/2.0 (MFD used) is more than for 200 mm at f/4.0. This lens (70-200 f/4.0 L IS) is touted as having the most sophisticated IS; why would I have to put it on a tripod (I am NOT rocking back and forth) to test it at shutter speed of 1/1000s. I would like to repeat it: I did not notice the problem in real life shooting (I am not new to IS and telephoto lenses).
--
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]

...However, heavily under-exposed shot here. Seems converted with DPP, because of the spatial artifacts that I noticed in some diagonally-oriented micro-detail on the petal-surfaces.

This shot you can stay around ISO100, and later boost sharpness just a tad more and end up with even more acutance, with basically no additional side-effects.

Just my 0.02c.

--

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

 

[KRobA]

No one should be claiming there is a problem without doing a
controlled test. Tripod mounted, IS off, mirror lockup, static
object, carefully measured distance, remote shutter release.

I did all my shots with the above except mirror lock-up but shutter speeds were high............and at f/4 1.2 metres my lens sucks.

Looks like it might be another bad copy problem

 

[mfurman]

repeat it: I did not notice the problem in real life shooting (I am
not new to IS and telephoto lenses).
--

I meant: I DID notice the problem in real life shooting ...

 

[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

 

[PIXSurgeon]

I did all my shots with the above except mirror lock-up but shutter
speeds were high............and at f/4 1.2 metres my lens sucks.

Looks like it might be another bad copy problem

You do not have the proper bodies to focus precisely at these short distances (neither AF'ing or manually), nor you have indicated how you operated len's IS (or not), etc.

Once again: shooting this lens at such short distance requires discarding A LOT of external variables, before concluding or finding an optical flaw.

And many, many folks do not seem to have this clear, or to have properly reflected this reality on their tests, or to have mentioned this on their posts.

That is all.

--

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

 

[mfurman]

These discussions about "sharpness of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS" remind me about all the disagreements about EF 50 f/1.2 L and its "focusing problem in 2-4 m range and f/2.8- f/5.6". Some see it, some do not care ("I am not shooting in this range" types of comments).
--
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]

I did all my shots with the above except mirror lock-up but shutter
speeds were high............and at f/4 1.2 metres my lens sucks.

Looks like it might be another bad copy problem

You do not have the proper bodies to focus precisely at these
short distances

The lens was focussed and then the AF disabled and not changed during the tests. The pictures were taken ON A TRIPOD at 45 degrees to the subject (FIXED) so to ensure that there WOULD BE a part of the image that was absolutely in the plane of focus.

nor you have
indicated how you operated len's IS (or not), etc.

IS off

Once again: shooting this lens at such short distance requires
discarding A LOT of external variables, before concluding or
finding an optical flaw.

Right, I have done the same tests with the 70-200 2.8 that I used to own and a sigma 150 macro. These gave perfect results.

And many, many folks do not seem to have this clear, or to have
properly reflected this reality on their tests, or to have
mentioned this on their posts.

 

[mfurman]

I would agree more eagerly if I saw any significant problems when focusing other lenses. 85 f/1.8 at f/2.0 and 0.85 m comes to my mind. I am waiting for 1D mkIII so may be I should not have returned my 70-200.
--
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]

I would agree more eagerly if I saw any significant problems when
focusing other lenses. 85 f/1.8 at f/2.0 and 0.85 m comes to my
mind. I am waiting for 1D mkIII so may be I should not have
returned my 70-200.
--
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]

Please see below a test image (no 45 degree), flat shot taken at 200mm f4 at MFD using tripod. IS off.

http://www.pbase.com/image/79492909/original

Should this copy be returned for an exchange?

Here is the one at same settings but at 2 meters (approx)

http://www.pbase.com/image/79493592/original

Your help is appreciated...

 

[ed rader]

so...if take the shot at say 7 feet does the problem go away or does it gradually get better?

i'm trying to understand what the problem is because it sounds to me like the minimum focussing distance may be longer than is advertised or that you expect?

i mean if i were getting soft shots that what i would assume and then i'd take a step back. so i suppose it's possible that i have experienced this problem but figured i was too close to the subject.

and are you using a tripod and manual focus?

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous