Some time ago I posted a thread about 70-200 f/4.0 L IS and its sharpness
I was asking if others had noticed poor sharpness of this lens at 200 mm and MFD (I saw in my pictures (and later tested) that the lens was quite sharp wide opened at 200 mm but only if focusing distance is > 2 m)
I have decided to try 70-200 f/4.0 L IS again and ordered it a few days ago. I though that many who denied that my problem exists, must have known better than I did.
I have been also thinking of getting 70-200 f/2.8 L IS to tests them both and compare.
Using the opportunity of a Canon show today, I did some further testing with the copies Canon provided. I spent at least 2h doing my shooting.
The show was in a park that is close to where I live so I took at least 50 pictures with my prime (for reference) yesterday.
Here is my conclusion (for the copies, I have tested)
1. 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is almost "useless" (for me) at f/2.8, especially at 200 mm
2. 70-200 f/4.0 L IS can be very sharp at f/4.0 and 135 mm (comparable to prime sharpness).
3.(!) 70-200 f/4.0 L IS has a MAJOR PROBLEM at 200 mm, f/4.0L and MFD (1.2m). I got this with my own copy and the lens I tested. Those who claim that this lens is sharp at 200 mm and MFD, have a different understanding of sharpness than I do.
4. 70-200 f/4.0 L IS is a better lens because f/2.8 on a bigger zoom is not sharp at all. To my surprise f/4.0 lens focuses faster.
First 6 pictures were taken with my (I think) sharp 85 f/1.8
Then there is the first "text file"
The following pictures were taken using 70-200 f/4.0 L IS lens (have a look at poor sharpness at MFD and 200 mm)
Another "text image" is followed by 70-200 f/2.8 L IS test images.
Those images are "average" - I took at least 300 shots. The exception are the images that came from 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens - I picked the best ones - if I had chosen the worst, you guys would have said that I did it "on purpose to prove my point" (they could have been really bad).
Please always look at the sharpness of center flower, preferably at original size. Check info for shooting conditions.
p.1 #2 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
What are your settings for the 400D, are you shooting Jpegs Both of my 70-200's
are sharp wide open at 200mm...not 200 f2.8L sharp but definitely better than your test results.
I'm shootin' a 30D and 1DmkII and the f4 IS is prime sharp at f5.6 on either body. Don't know what to tell you....
p.1 #3 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
trenchmonkey said: What are your settings for the 400D, are you shooting Jpegs
I always shoot RAW and process using Capture One. I check the sharpness in Focus tab.
As I mentioned, my second copy of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS has not arrived yet. When it comes, I will probably keep it regardless (after may be some calibration). I was thinking of ordering 70-200 f/2.8 L IS as well but after those tests, I cannot see that it is going to be sharper than f/4.0 zoom.
Have you seen my 85 f/1.8 "reference" images? They were all taken at MFD of that lens. Is your zoom comparable to that at similar magnification?
p.1 #4 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
DOF for the 200mm focal length @ 1.2m based on the www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html is about .25 cm in from and back of the subject (total 0.5cm.) This explains some of my toddler shots have sharp noses but blurry eyes when I shoot at 200mm/f4 and very close up. The 85mm/1.8 total DOF is about 1.5cm.
A total DOF of 0.5cm is about 1/4 of one inch. Those tiny flowers you're shooting will be blurry if your camera/lens combo AF is not dead on, or if your lens is at an angle (more than a couple of degrees off axis.)
You are correct that a lot of your flowers are not sharp @ 100%. All I'm saying is that your setting are nearly physically impossible with your lens. Those flowers are better captured by a dedicated macro lens rather than a telezoom.
By the way, my settings for those flowers with my 100/2.8 macro would've been f14 at 1:2 magnification and manual focus.
p.1 #5 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
EltonTeng: You are correct that a lot of your flowers are not sharp @ 100%. All I'm saying is that your setting are nearly physically impossible with your lens. Those flowers are better captured by a dedicated macro lens rather than a telezoom.
Did you see my 85 f/1.8 test pictures (at f/2.2 and MFD) ?
I did not have a single sharp (some would say: "very sharp") picture at 200 mm and close to MFD (out of at least 50 in the latest session)
p.1 #8 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
This makes sense! At 3x the DOF the 85 should be "more" in focus.
From about 5' it's not too shabby. If the new lens isn't satisfactory at MFD of 1.2m
try and take a 1/2 a step back and crop to taste. You've got 10mp to work with! Good luck!
p.1 #10 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
mfurman wrote:
Are they (85 f/1.8 shots) sharp enough for you (f/2.2)?
Yes, they are very sharp.
I typically stand farther than 1.25m from my subject if I were using a 200mm focal length. I also typically stop down to f5.6 or even f8 if the background is farther away, and because toddlers move erratically I need all the DOF I can get when they stray close to the lens.
You don't always have to shoot wide open to get good bokeh.
Jul 08, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Guest Offline Guest
p.1 #11 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
Michael if this is the Stan C Reed show today I was there also, I tried the 1DMKIII and snapped on my 70-200 f/4 IS, this was at 200mm with no PP
AV was f/8
p.1 #12 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
mrclark321: Michael if this is the Stan C Reed show today
Yes, it was
I never said that 70-200 f/4.0 L IS cannot "deliver" a sharp image. I am only saying that it does not seem to do it at 200 mm and MFD. I am getting another copy and will test (on the same flowers) tomorrow.
Jul 08, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Guest Offline Guest
p.1 #13 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
Did you try 300 f/2.8 Damn I like that lens! Here is one from today
p.1 #16 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
RyanFlynn: To me, expecting clinical sharpness wide open, at the maximum focal length, and at the minimum focusing distance, is just too much.
I would agree but..
- 100-400 L behaves very well at its maximum magnification (I know, it has a floating element)
- there is a strange, abrupt loss of sharpness (residual spherical aberration takes effect?) at approximately 180 mm and less than 7 feet focusing distance. The lens is perfect at 135 mm.
p.1 #17 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
The only way to guarantee it is to get your lens/camera calibrated. According to the people who service my gear, all digital camera sensors are a bit soft. They also say that lenses can be optimised to some degree. Get both of them done and custom set up for each of your lenses and sharpness should not be a problem. I'm actually more interested in the contrast and saturation of your pics. Did you use a custom white balance?
p.1 #18 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
I have actually owned 2 of these lenses and I am now wondering whether to send the second one back.
They both backfocused around 1.5 cm at focusing distance of 1.5m and 200mm and I now believe that this is just the way this lens works.
I have tested on 3 bodies (300d, 350d, 30d) and taken hundreds of shots using tripod etc. etc..
Both lenses have backfocused in exactly the same way and my question is really whether I should swap it for another copy and give it another try, totally give up on a 70-200 lens with Image Stabilization or switch to a different lens such as the 70-300 IS which is half price.
I tend to use the zoom at the extreme ends of the range a lot and close up which means that a lot of my shots are really out of focus which is really annoying for a lens that is:
a) not cheap
b) according to so many reviews as good as it gets for a canon zoom.
What should I do? Learn to live with it perhaps?
I don't want the weight of the 70-200 2.8 and I tried and returned the 200mm prime which was super sharp and had good colours but I really found that I missed the IS so much.
p.1 #19 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
J.D. said:The only way to guarantee it is to get your lens/camera calibrated.
Have you seen the test pictures taken with 85 f/1.8 lens? Why would I want to change calibration of the camera when it works well with this lens? Should I have a different camera for every lens?
p.1 #20 · EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS - sharpness question - IS problem?
ian halsall: ...my question is really whether I should swap it for another copy and give it another try, totally give up on a 70-200 lens with Image Stabilization or switch to a different lens...
My thoughts EXACTLY. I am getting another copy today and if it does not work for ME, it will be the end of my experiment with this zoom.
Many show me great pictures with this lens but they are usually at the long focusing distance. Photozone tested this lens at very long focusing distance as well (I asked him) and on top they focus manually.
Both of my 70-200's
If the new lens isn't satisfactory at MFD of 1.2m
