yauyi wrote:
Interesting question, If maximum magnification with absolute sharpness is my goal (ie: flower, small critters, etc.), then 135mm @4ft > 165mm @8ft > 200mm @12ft.
Or use a macro lens instead
Your tests show the same behaviour as my copy. The MFD "issue" is a result of how this lens was designed. It can't be "fixed". Either accept that or just move on and return it/sell it. I use this lens for general photography (people, landscapes, products) and get excellent results and are never bothered by it's MFD limitations. Again, if I want to shoot flowers I use a different lens. Different tools for different jobs
Daan B: Again, if I want to shoot flowers I use a different lens.
I did use 70-200 f/4.0 L IS mostly for flowers but I accept that I might have thought of using a Macro lens instead. The question is what you would use for fast moving butterflies? In addition, some prefer not to have many tools but use one "perfect" lens for most of the shooting. 70-200 f/4.0 L IS could have been this lens.
mfurman wrote:
In addition, some prefer not to have many tools but use one "perfect" lens for most of the shooting. 70-200 f/4.0 L IS could have been this lens.
Yes but it isn't
I doubt if there is such a thing as a "perfect" one solution lens. Especially regarding zooms which are made out of optical compromises for the sake of flexibilty / convenience.
IS would be very useful on a 135 mm lens (especially when used on a crop camera - even more with a TC). I can take pictures with 70-400 f/4.0 L IS that I could not with 135 f/2.0
Your tests show the same behaviour as my copy. The MFD "issue" is a result of how this lens was designed. It can't be "fixed". Either accept that or just move on and return it/sell it. I use this lens for general photography (people, landscapes, products) and get excellent results and are never bothered by it's MFD limitations. Again, if I want to shoot flowers I use a different lens. Different tools for different jobs
yes the macro lens will do a much better job for small critters and flower and stuff, but this is the only version in the 70-200 line-up that has this MFD problem, the non-IS version, and both 2.8 and 2.8 IS don't have this issue so i think this is a design flaw....1DMK3 anyone? I hope Canon would revise and fix this issue someday.
I have the 70-200 f4 non-IS version, and it is an issue with this lens, at least my copy. I just work around it for now, and eventually will buy a macro.
"If little or no in-camera sharpening has been applied prior to viewing an EOS-1 class
Digital SLR image at 100% magnification, especially with the EOS-1D Mark II, most
photographers will agree that the image looks soft, even if it has been properly focused
and exposed. This is mostly due to the detail-softening effect of the camera’s
anti-aliasing (AA) filter, which is permanently mounted in front of the image sensor. The
AA filter plays an important role in reducing or eliminating false colors and moiré, but
the trade-off is that images must be sharpened either in the camera or in the computer
prior to final usage."
mendofr wrote:
This might be a factor why I get soft images using 70-200 f4 IS. I did not know this until I read the artile below. What do you guys think?
If that was the case then regardless what lenses you use all files would come out soft, don't you think? The MK2 "issue" that you mention was addressed in MK2n.
Daan B wrote:
There were/are reports that the non-IS f/4 lens also diplays this MFD issue. Don't know about the f/2.8 versions though.
Looking through some of those "throw-out" shots from my 70-200 2.8 IS, I can definitely confirmed that my copy had this exact same issue! Back then I thought it was me but the more I dig through the old archives the more I see this kind of softness and haze in close range shots from that lens. Now I know why i hated my 70-200 2.8 IS so dang much
this one was taken back in 6/3/2006 at 200mm 1/750s @f/2.8:
resize:
yauyi wrote:
Looking through some of those "throw-out" shots from my 70-200 2.8 IS, I can definitely confirmed that my copy had this exact same issue! Back then I thought it was me but the more I dig through the old archives the more I see this kind of softness and haze in close range shots from that lens. Now I know why i hated my 70-200 2.8 IS so dang much
This doesn't surprise me... I had a Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f/2.9 that had the same MFD issue also. Only it needed at least 5 meters MFD @ 200mm to give me sharp pics.
The thing is, I don't believe all 70-200 2.8 IS had this issue, Daniella at dpreview went through two copies of the 4.0 IS with the same MFD problem recently, she decided to get the 2.8 IS instead so she can shoot owl at 200mm in 7ft range, and she claim the 2.8 IS is very sharp and much better than the 4.0 IS...
Dangit. When people are speculating, could you guys put a question mark in the subject line? The subject line that this thread has is totally misleading.
For example: "70-200 F4 IS bad batch?" says to me, "I am wondering if there is a bad batch."
Whereas "70-200 F4 IS bad batch" says to me, "I am claiming that there is a bad batch." But there is no such bad batch - it's all just Internet speculation.
I hope Canon would revise and fix this issue someday.
