the r6 has af release priority in one-shot mode, but that won't help here because you should be using continuous af for sports... sony has release priority with continuous af, but it doesn't make the af more accurate, it just adds to the computational overhead, so most of us just leave it off, you aren't missing anything.
if you were using r6 continuous af, there should have been several pics in the series, were they all front-focused.
The R6 test shot looks OK in the plane of focus at that resolution, but the blur in the out of focus scale areas looks nervous. I don't have direct experience with that lens so not sure if that is how blur is normally rendered just outside the plane of focus.
Interesting that the lens was dropped and repaired. Definitely compare it against your BIL's copy.
The point of doing a brick wall test is to see how the plane of focus is maintained across the entire image. The test target photo shows that the lens and camera combo can focus accurately at a specific point, but doesn't tell much about the rest of the image.
osv2 wrote:
the r6 has af release priority in one-shot mode, but that won't help here because you should be using continuous af for sports... sony has release priority with continuous af, but it doesn't make the af more accurate, it just adds to the computational overhead, so most of us just leave it off, you aren't missing anything.
if you were using r6 continuous af, there should have been several pics in the series, were they all front-focused.
Good points on the AF release priority.
Unfortunately I culled most of the pictures on the PC and formatted the cards. We have an all day tournament on Saturday though so I should have plenty of fresh images to compare this weekend.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
Good points on the AF release priority.
Unfortunately I culled most of the pictures on the PC and formatted the cards. We have an all day tournament on Saturday though so I should have plenty of fresh images to compare this weekend.
I shot with 70-200 L IS II today on R6 with face detection (mostly) with some spot AF photos mixed in and looks like yours hasn't been repaired properly. I got mostly sharp photos, none of them looked like yours. One thing you can try is to stop down to f3.5 - this should give you very sharp photos even at 200mm (its weakest setting). At f2.8 it can produce very sharp results too, but better to play it safe. I have shot at f3.5 with mine for a number of years on DSLR's, so the old habits remain on R6 for now.
osv2 wrote:
the r6 has af release priority in one-shot mode, but that won't help here because you should be using continuous af for sports... sony has release priority with continuous af, but it doesn't make the af more accurate, it just adds to the computational overhead, so most of us just leave it off, you aren't missing anything.
if you were using r6 continuous af, there should have been several pics in the series, were they all front-focused.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
Good points on the AF release priority.
Unfortunately I culled most of the pictures on the PC and formatted the cards. We have an all day tournament on Saturday though so I should have plenty of fresh images to compare this weekend.
I was finally able to borrow the lens from my BIL. I did a few tests back to back. I think this clock picture is a good example of what I am seeing. This is a screen shot with the pictures zoomed in 100% in reference view in LightRoom.
My lens is on the left. These were shot at 200mm, f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 8000 at about 15 feet. This is pretty similar lighting to what I see in the gyms.
I bought this lens second hand. Now that I'm looking through my pictures with a fresh perspective I can see that it's never been super sharp even before it was dropped and repaired. I tried doing AF micro adjustment on it but never got it to be tack sharp. I finally just put it down to the body (5DIII). That's one of the reasons I upgraded to the R6. I was hoping that the dual pixel AF would be able to focus better since it uses the camera's sensor. I have to say that I'm disappointed that CPS didn't do a better job when they repaired it.
I submitted a repair request with CPS. Hopefully they will get it right this time.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
I was finally able to borrow the lens from my BIL. I did a few tests back to back. I think this clock picture is a good example of what I am seeing. This is a screen shot with the pictures zoomed in 100% in reference view in LightRoom.
My lens is on the left. These were shot at 200mm, f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 8000 at about 15 feet. This is pretty similar lighting to what I see in the gyms.
I bought this lens second hand. Now that I'm looking through my pictures with a fresh perspective I can see that it's never been super sharp even before it was dropped and repaired. I tried doing AF micro adjustment on it but never got it to be tack sharp. I finally just put it down to the body (5DIII). That's one of the reasons I upgraded to the R6. I was hoping that the dual pixel AF would be able to focus better since it uses the camera's sensor. I have to say that I'm disappointed that CPS didn't do a better job when they repaired it.
I submitted a repair request with CPS. Hopefully they will get it right this time....Show more →
DSLR auto-focus gets you there very quickly, but there's always a margin of error from shot to shot. I think we all got used to this and the lens was close enough to be within that margin. Then mirrorless comes along, we get used to perfect focus, and suddenly that lens that was close enough no longer is.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
I was finally able to borrow the lens from my BIL. I did a few tests back to back. I think this clock picture is a good example of what I am seeing. This is a screen shot with the pictures zoomed in 100% in reference view in LightRoom.
My lens is on the left. These were shot at 200mm, f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 8000 at about 15 feet. This is pretty similar lighting to what I see in the gyms.
I bought this lens second hand. Now that I'm looking through my pictures with a fresh perspective I can see that it's never been super sharp even before it was dropped and repaired. I tried doing AF micro adjustment on it but never got it to be tack sharp. I finally just put it down to the body (5DIII). That's one of the reasons I upgraded to the R6. I was hoping that the dual pixel AF would be able to focus better since it uses the camera's sensor. I have to say that I'm disappointed that CPS didn't do a better job when they repaired it.
I submitted a repair request with CPS. Hopefully they will get it right this time....Show more →
Glad you found out your lens was a "dud" (which sucks but unfortunately it happens from time to time). It really was a game changer compared to earlier 70-200 L versions (both non IS and IS), because it was really sharp - visibly an appreciably more than my non IS version, which was sharper than the original IS version. I hope they will sort out your copy.
Silly question - but you don't have a UV filter on your lens do you? I thought a new to me 100-400L II was needing AFMA on my 5DIII, but turns out the UV filter was wreaking havoc on the IQ. Took it off, and perfect. A silly suggestion for something to check before you send it back, if you haven't already.
jedibrain wrote:
Silly question - but you don't have a UV filter on your lens do you? I thought a new to me 100-400L II was needing AFMA on my 5DIII, but turns out the UV filter was wreaking havoc on the IQ. Took it off, and perfect. A silly suggestion for something to check before you send it back, if you haven't already.
Brian
No, I don't use any filters on this lens. Thanks for the thought though.
@ChrisAttebery what's my prize for the correct diagnosis?
Good luck with the repair! I've been skeptical about whether Canon can repair an impact damaged lens back to specs, but they did it with my 200-400, which initially worked fine after being damaged, but eventually wouldn't hold acceptable sharpness across the frame outside the point of focus. It was more noticeable when the built-in 1.4x TC was used and the smearing it created looked similar to what I saw in your example photos. That lens has a very complex optical system of ~30ish elements, so hopefully Canon can get your 70-200 right a the second time. If not, I would continue to press them about it and also share your comparison results with your BIL's lens.
FWIW, when the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II was new on the market, I tested one of Canon Canada's demo units and within 10-20 shots noticed it had some really weird sharpness problems, IIRC most noticeable at 200mm. It kind of turned me off the lens because I'd never been super happy with the AF performance of the previous IS version, particularly for lower light sports events...
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how old your lens is? Could it be an early batch that had production issues similar to the one I briefly tried? But the thing with demo lenses is you don't know how they've been treated/abused.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
Last night I used the borrowed lens and I'm much happier with the results. I used a mix of Eye, Spot and Zone AF. They all seemed to work much better.
I'd be pretty satisfied if CPS can get my lens to work this well.
Yes, these definitely look better. Curious what shutter mode you used (electronic, mechanical...) and if you had any difficulty timing your shots due to EVF lag, etc.?
