beepclick wrote:
This was my first 'L' lens - date code UW0305 - I had high expectations from all the glowing reviews. I have been very disappointed at results past 180mm - with 40D, 30D and XTi and under 10 feet.
exchange it for another copy and give it another try, I'm glad I did.
yauyi wrote:
I just got my replacement today, this copy is WAY better than the one I returned. Wide open in MFD @200mm is very sharp and I do not see any haze/halo like the previous copy. I also tested it briefly around the house from 70~135mm in MFD, it's safe to say that I've got a good copy this time and am very satisfied.
[insert pics]
Lens code of the second copy is UW0305, I'm keeping this one for sure.
WOW so does this mean not all 70-200 f/4L IS have the MFD problem? Were you right on MFD? I swear those shots look as good as my 85 f/1.2 II (Your 70mm one is a bit soft though)
yauyi:
I just got my replacement today, this copy is WAY better than the one I returned. Wide open in MFD @200mm is very sharp
I am not not only surprised - I am shocked that your 70-200 f/4.0 L IS does not have a problem at 200 mm and MFD. How is this lens at 70 mm? How is it when you focus on very distant objects? I mean 100% crops.
I have just got my third copy (I tested 4 more!) - it is UW05 code and although it is excellent in the range of 70-135 mm (at 135 mm and MFD is sharper than anything, I mean anything!, I saw before), it shows the same "haze" at 200 mm and MFD, I have seen with all the other lenses.
I exchanged mine as well and got an UW0105. This is the third copy I'm testing and I'm still not completely satisfied based on the widespread rave comments.
This last one is really sharp (ie no change when closing down) from 100mm and some up to 200mm, however I get a slight but visible haze around bright edges in strong contrast situations between 70 and 100mm, focusing on infinity. Sharpness remains very good though. Stopping it down to 5.6 completely solves this haze issue. Obviously I tested with and without filter, and used the 'liveview contrast detect AF' to rule out any focusing error.
I use a 450D body (sorry) which is known for its demanding sensor (high pix density and weak antialias filter). What do you fellows think ? Am I expecting too much ?
After seeing the MFT charts, this lens is supposed to be better at 200mm where there should be no difference between wide open and F8 contrast-wise, but there should be a difference at 70mm. Hard to believe I hit this limit, the link between the MTF charts and what I see is certainly not that simple or real.
All I can say is that I was never happy with this lens at 70 mm and long focusing distances. I am taking about 3 copies, I owned. The bottom line is that the lens has its limitations (not good at <2.8m focusing distance at > 170 mm and not very good at 70 mm and long focusing distance) but otherwise it can give you great results. I think that its colour and contrast are superb and that is why I bought it the third time. It is very sharp at 135 mm.
yauyi wrote:
I just got my replacement today, this copy is WAY better than the one I returned. Wide open in MFD @200mm is very sharp and I do not see any haze/halo like the previous copy. I also tested it briefly around the house from 70~135mm in MFD, it's safe to say that I've got a good copy this time and am very satisfied.
Sharp at 200mm... soft at 70mm... Soft at 200mm... sharp at 70mm... These lenses are calibrated by setting focus at 70mm and 200mm. Everything in between should fall automatically into place.
I had my copy calibrated and it is sharp at 70mm wide open and at 200mm wide open (and everything in between). However, it still doesn't like to focus up-close from 160mm-200mm. What minimal shooting distance gives acceptable results depends on the subject and how AF is able to correct itself.
I have shot sharp pics at 2 meters (and maybe a bit under 2 meters) and 200mm. But that doesn't include flat surfaces parallel to the sensor plane. And they sure aren't as sharp as MFD 135mm pics. YMMV
I generally use primes but when deciding about the zoom, I would like it to perform as well as a prime or at least know what the weakness of the lens is. If I were to use a tube, I may as well put a Macro lens on. There is no doubt that this zoom has great IS and good contrast and colour. I wish it could be as sharp at both ends of its range (from MFD to infinity) as it is at 135 mm
By the way, this thread shows how 70-200 f/4.0 L IS performs with 500D
I wonder if a tube would do any good. Basically nothing changes in the IQ department, you only will be able to focus closer. Maybe you just have the same MFD problems at 200mm, albeit at a closer distance. In any case, the 500D seems to be insufficient to counter the MFD 200mm effects. I agree with Michael... If you want to get closer, use a macro lens or a lens like the 135L (with tubes) or 300mm f/4 IS.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm shocked. I was under the impression the 70-200 f/4L IS was sheer perfection. I think people are just having a lend of us.
Pixel Perfect:
When I was still a lurker here I got the then brand new IS model the same time trenchmonkey did, within a month or so of release, and we both got incredible copies. To make a long story short I bought a magic drainpipe, and decided to sell it. Big, Big mistake.
Bought a new copy again to take on a rather extensive hike - a buddy of mine got one and we were both going packing and I more or less got prodded into it (didn't take much). To my utter dismay and horror memories of my prior bright luminous star turned into a horned toad, and my friends was not much better. Showed much the same as what you are seeing on this thread. Back they both went.
After reading up a bit I came to realize that there were now some "issues" with this lens, that were absolutely unheard of the first six on nine months when the lens was first produced.
Besides my MD's, I now own the f4 non-IS version in this focal range, which is razor sharp. Just incredible how Canon could take an earth-shaking new entry and have everybody and his brother run it up to the top of the flagpole, and then only a short time later grind it into the mud. The QC for this model just went out the door - and it seems they didn't even care that is was going out the front door. Just Amazing.
Maybe the lemons are just turning around until some unaware or exhausted dude ends up keeping them. My last 70-200 was manufactured in january, hard to believe it spent 7 to 8 months on a shelf. If stores (or worse, Canon itself) keeps recycling the bad ones without any fix, we end up with more duds around than good ones. I cannot believe I'm that unlucky after 3 tries.
Worse, my pain started earlier, I had to change a tilted focus plane 17-55 F2.8 to get a good one on my second attempt. The kit lens that came with my 450D has a tilted focus plane as well (left or right side of frame OOF), sent it to Canon and went back "within specs".
I'm really disappointed. I won't recommend buying Canon anymore as it was and still is a pita for me to get a satisfying 70-200.
The sad thing is, I would be ready to pay more to have a really good lens. As for many of you probably, I was considering this lens as a myth, some kind of jewel. A jewel has a really subjective price. Hell, even if the price was 50% higher but quality guaranteed I would buy it. Hear me Canon ?
hagar wrote:
Maybe the lemons are just turning around until some unaware or exhausted dude ends up keeping them. My last 70-200 was manufactured in january, hard to believe it spent 7 to 8 months on a shelf. If stores (or worse, Canon itself) keeps recycling the bad ones without any fix, we end up with more duds around than good ones. I cannot believe I'm that unlucky after 3 tries.
Worse, my pain started earlier, I had to change a tilted focus plane 17-55 F2.8 to get a good one on my second attempt. The kit lens that came with my 450D has a tilted focus plane as well (left or right side of frame OOF), sent it to Canon and went back "within specs".
I'm really disappointed. I won't recommend buying Canon anymore as it was and still is a pita for me to get a satisfying 70-200.
The sad thing is, I would be ready to pay more to have a really good lens. As for many of you probably, I was considering this lens as a myth, some kind of jewel. A jewel has a really subjective price. Hell, even if the price was 50% higher but quality guaranteed I would buy it. Hear me Canon ?...Show more →
A lens is lens... not a jewel. If one believes all the fairy tales on the internet, one may start to believe that lenses can make you happy... You are confronted with real life. There is no such thing as a perfect lens. Certainly not when it comes to zoom lenses... These are big compromises where IQ is sacrificed for the sake of flexibility.
The MFD "issue"... If you can call it an issue has nothing to do with "bad" samples. Every 70-200mm f/4 IS lens has got this "issue". Some will display the "issue" a bit more clearly than other samples. A lot depends on how the system (cam + lens) is communicating. Calibration plays a important role in this.
The 70-200mm f/4 IS is a very fine zoom lens with some compromises. For general usage it is more than capable. One of the best there is. But don't expect it to give super performance when using it as some kind of macro or whatever.
Daan B:
The 70-200mm f/4 IS is a very fine zoom lens with some compromises. For general usage it is more than capable. One of the best there is. But don't expect it to give super performance when using it as some kind of macro or whatever.
I agree 100%. By the way, what are you getting for your (if I remember correctly) "crabs at 2 m" shots ?
dcmiller wrote:
Has anyone dissatisfied with MFD sharpness tried a short extension tube? That might put the glass in a more favorable position.
I expect most of the reported softness at long MFD is a design tradoff to optomize resolution near infinity.
I have both the IS and non-IS version of this lens. I would rate these as the two best zooms I have used.
I do often use this lens with tubes and it is a very nice work around in my view. It does fixes the problem almost all the time. Just realize that you should push the limits of the new MFD or you will again see the same reductions in sharpness and contrast as with the lens without tubes. The 500D does much the same thing. Now you can get the shots you want without having to use the MFD. Here are a few examples of shots I have taken with my 70-200 f/4L IS with tubes:
