So is this the 70-200 that you were complaining about initially? Are you now keeping your lens?
Yup this is the same lens that I was complaining about the MFD softness at 200mm, I probably would keep this lens knowing that it is pretty good from 70 to about 180mm. I bought this lens for outdoor portraiture and candid so I think it's going to do well for my need, I guess I can think of it this way...when I wanted to do some dreamy portraiture all i needed to do is get within the MFD range, zoom in to 200mm and POW....instant soft focus effect!!
mfurman wrote:
It was easy for me You either have outstanding 100-400 or not so good (at 200 mm) 70-200 f/4.0 L IS
I think it's both, my 100-400 is excellent and the 70-200 4 IS sucks at 200mm.
Thanks for your help. Your pictures all look sharp to me with good colors. In my case, maybe it's the photographer who I need to send to canon factory for service. Hehe. I may just hang on to my lens and I guess just keep working with canon service to have it tweaked until I am satisfied with the results.
Thanks for your help. Your pictures all look sharp to me with good colors. In my case, maybe it's the photographer who I need to send to canon factory for service. Hehe. I may just hang on to my lens and I guess just keep working with canon service to have it tweaked until I am satisfied with the results.
at 135mm yours appear to be a bit soft to me, did you use tripod and MLU for those shots? also try liveview and see if there is any improvement at all....at 200mm it looks just like mine.
No bad batch. the 70-200/4 IS, despite it's strengths is known for lousy performance at longer FLs at or near MFD. In short, as you zoom many have to start stepping back. Kinda defeats the purpose of having the zoom in the first place.
If you get a good search here you'll see many complaints of issue. IIRC tests showed that as you get past the 100mm mark or so, getting that famous 70-200/4 IS sharpness required a MFD of 10M or so.
Yep. I used a tripod for all shots. That's why I'm a bit disappointed with the lens I have now because I see some softness in my pics. Maybe it's just me ( the photographer). I have high expectations from this lens as I used to have a super sharp copy. I'm not sure what to do with this lens. If I return it, there's really no guarantee that I will get a good copy. The store may ban me for returning too many lenses : ). I may just send it to canon factory again for some more adjustments.
mendofr wrote:
Yep. I used a tripod for all shots. That's why I'm a bit disappointed with the lens I have now because I see some softness in my pics. Maybe it's just me ( the photographer). I have high expectations from this lens as I used to have a super sharp copy. I'm not sure what to do with this lens. If I return it, there's really no guarantee that I will get a good copy. The store may ban me for returning too many lenses : ). I may just send it to canon factory again for some more adjustments.
I agree it does look a bit soft to me at 135mm also. Mine is sharp at 135mm MFD.
To rule out possible AF problems do some tests by focusing manually. If you have Live View use it. If you get better results this way the AF may need some tuning. Sent it in. If you don't get any better results, well than this may be all there is. In that case return it if you are unhappy with it.
mendofr:
Thanks for your help. Your pictures all look sharp to me with good colors.
My most recent copy of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS was very good (prime sharpness and good color) at 135 mm and up to 160 mm if I wanted to be at MFD.
All the pictures in that folder were taken with having that restriction in mind. After my initial tests (and returning one copy), I never used this zoom at focusing distance < 3 m (9-10 feet) when at 200 mm.
I think that the the strength of this lens is an excellent IS
(I hope that you do not mind religious subject) this one is at 1/20 s
It is an excellent lens (with some problems, I talked about). The data code is: UV0403. I tested three copies made in the span of two months (March - April) and they were quite similar.
mendofr wrote:
Yep. I used a tripod for all shots. That's why I'm a bit disappointed with the lens I have now because I see some softness in my pics. Maybe it's just me ( the photographer). I have high expectations from this lens as I used to have a super sharp copy. I'm not sure what to do with this lens. If I return it, there's really no guarantee that I will get a good copy. The store may ban me for returning too many lenses : ). I may just send it to canon factory again for some more adjustments.
There's no reason that store should ban you for returning a defective, or sub-par product. For the amount these lenses cost, I think it's absolutely okay for you to ditch it to get a better copy.
When I order my 70-200 2.8, if that thing even gives me an inkling it's going to be a sub-par performer, it's ass is going right back to wherever I buy it. Same with the 24-70 I'll buy to be it's friend.
I know what you mean but I hate returning items. I just wonder why Canon has so many quality control issues. Are nikon camera's and lenses better? I might just convert. : )
I did a few more test to find out where the sweet spot is on this lens, if I must shoot at MFD (4ft) I would have to stay between 70 to 135mm, sharpness is excellent even at wide open within this focal range.. 6~8ft I can use only up to 160mm which is very sharp even wide open. 200mm is going to require at least 12ft to be acceptable regardless of what f-stops I used. Like someone else said, in a way it kinda defeat the purpose of having a zoom where I would have to constantly remind myself of such restriction...
85mm 1.8 + 135L prime are looking more and more attractive to me.
Jammy Straub wrote:
You definitely won't have problems at 200mm with that combo
IF I end up going prime then my 100-400L will cover >135mm all the way up to 400mm, I would not hesitate to use the 100-400L at 200mm even wide open. I don't know...my mind is going back and forth whether to keep the 70-200 or not. It's a shame that such a nice lens is being cripple by this MFD nonsense.
RobertLynn wrote:
It'd be interesting to see the difference of an image at 8ft 160mm, and 12ft 200mm.
would it yield the same image, or would the 200 (or even the 160) be closer?
Also, those images of the box...am I the only one that thinks they are acceptable, especially with no PP?
Interesting question, If maximum magnification with absolute sharpness is my goal (ie: flower, small critters, etc.), then 135mm @4ft > 165mm @8ft > 200mm @12ft.
yauyi:
IF I end up going prime then my 100-400L will cover >135mm all the way up to 400mm, I would not hesitate to use the 100-400L at 200mm even wide open.
I agree that a good copy of 100-400 is quite sharp at 200 mm but you have to remember about 1.8 m (6 feet) MFD. It all depends if you need 4 stop IS. I think that 85/135 combo is better if you have to keep higher shutter speed anyway. I am actually to choose two primes instead of zoom because I prefer shallow DOF (will use 1.4 TC for 200 mm). For me, additional problem with L zooms is that they are not allowed at many concerts and other events. I also keep in mind that 70-200 zoom is not that great at 70 mm (especially at close to infinity)
You either have outstanding 100-400 or not so good (at 200 mm) 70-200 f/4.0 L IS