I know, rehashed into oblivion, but please indulge me.
I recently acquired a 70-200/4 after lots of contemplation and based on its documented merits, primarily its sharpness which has widely been proven to be "prime-like" (like on photozone).
I'm not a pixel-peeper by nature, but rather tend to take a new lens out for a spin and not worry about "issues" until they become apparent under normal use. Perhaps I've been getting my hopes up unrealistically high after reading all the hyperbole that surrounds this lens, but I can't say that I'm too thrilled about its sharpness.
I only have two close contenders to compare it to: a Sigma 180/3.5 Macro and a Canon 200/2.8L. I took out the Sigma first, and will do the side-by-side with the Canon later today or tomorrow. I shot a few frames with each lens to rule out focusing mishaps, but all basically showed the same results:
This is straight from the camera (5D Mark II), no sharpening applied to either side. Both were shot @ f/4 which is (close to) wide open for each. The subject appears a little smaller in the frame for the Sigma because of the difference in focal length. Each show both the near and far petals OOF, which puts the focus somewhere in the heart of the flower.
Is this the typical performance I should expect from this lens? I know I'm comparing a zoom to a prime (and a macro prime at that) but like I said, the 70-200/4's sharpness is said to be akin to that of a prime.
The 70-200's have a decrease in sharpness and contrast when shooting from MFD to about 2,5 meters from 160-200mm. This is why they are not very suitable for macro work.
The 70-200's have a decrease in sharpness and contrast when shooting from MFD to about 2,5 meters from 160-200mm. This is why they are not very suitable for macro work.
+1 your never going to want to get too close with the Canon, hence I believe a contributing factor to your results. That said the Sigma is not to be discounted, capable of some stunning shots itself.
I'm surprised how well the 70-200 f/4 compares in this comparison. It's basically a comparsion between a lens that is a dog at MFD against a Macro that is the equal of the 180L in sharpness
If anything, the Sigma shot should be even sharper, and the 70-200 f/4 should be even softer (the IS version is worse in this regard iirc)
It would seem that I've overlooked a key aspect of this lens; I never heard of it performing worse towards MFD. It doesn't bother me though, because my samples are not the typical subject matter I bought this lens for.
As for the other suggestions: the shots were done handheld (mainly because the Canon doesn't come with a tripod ring) but at 1/1000 with IS engaged, camera shake is rather unlikely. The Sigma is heavier than the Canon and thus more prone to inducing motion blur, and all the comparison shots with that lens were as sharp as I'd expect them to be.
Yes, the test was a bit unfair, but I don't have a zoom to compare the 70-200 to. Still, even taken the optimized performance of the Sigma into account, I was underwhelmed by the Canon. But since this turns out to be an inherent limitation, it doesn't bother me much. I just took some head shots (no model was hurt in the process) and the results from that were much more encouraging.
I noticed that I didn't mention it in my OP, but my 70-200 is the IS model.
My Sigma is indeed very sharp, it is one of the most stellar performers in my arsenal. And with the equally excellent 60/2.8 and the MP-E 65 to complement it, I wasn't planning on using the 70-200 for macro anyway.
So until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to attribute this to operator error (as in: wasn't aware of the tool's properties) and not even bother with any further testing.
The 70-200's have a decrease in sharpness and contrast when shooting from MFD to about 2,5 meters from 160-200mm. This is why they are not very suitable for macro work.
+2
My 70-200 f/4 is very sharp, but that sharpness suffers as you approach MFD. The only thing I don't use my 70-200 f/4 for is macro's or close ups. My Sigma 105 f/2.8 is much better for that purpose.
I sometimes use the 70-200 mentioned above along with the f1.8 85mm for head shots during the same session...using strobes.
At f4 at around the 80mm setting I can't visually tell the images apart ( zoom vs 85mm). I tend to use the zoom when it is sometimes more convenient to use the 70mm and up setting rather than the fixed 85mm. I can safely say...at any setting...it will show the minutest of skin blemishes!
