I have had this lens a fair time now and I'm not, nor have I ever been, particularly impressed with it. I think for the money, I should be impressed with it, but am I judging too harshly compared to my 500/4is? I know that it is possibly imcomparable, but i don't think I get the quality I should be getting from it.
The problem I get it is seems a bit noisy and lacks critical detail. With the 500/4, I view everything at 100% in C1 and judge the quality accordingly. If it's not pin sharp, it pretty much goes. If I do the same with the 70-200, I notice a distinct difference in quality.
I have read reviews on Fred Miranda, and 95% of people say this lens is pin sharp. I don't think mine is, but am I expecting too much? Stopping down doesn't make a huge difference in quality
Also, some people said they returned their lens to Canon and it made a huge difference when returned. What sorts of things would Canon do to the lens an at what price? I think it may be just out of warranty.
Can anyone offer any comments on this, or do I need to elaborate a bit more and perhaps post an image crop?
I am still laying on my stomach due to a back problem so not able to comment much on posts at the mo.
Hmm sending it to Canon, can be a double edged sword. I've heard of things coming back worse then when they where sent...
Yes it sounds like something isnt right. I've never owned a 70-200 IS but i know that it i meant to be almost as good as the 80-200 f2.8L.
It sounds like yours has poor "micro contrast" its the same with the Nikkor 18-70 and 18-35.
Both are sharp at the same focal lengths, but the 18-35 renders more detail in low contrast areas.
I would recommend sending it to Lehmann's for a calibration check and test.
Hi Graeme, I don't know if this makes any sense and not being a Canon user I don't know for sure, but one of the guys at Bob Rigbys was telling me the other day that some canon 35mm lenses need to be re-calibrated by Canon to give tacksharp images with some of their digital slrs.
Sounds like it needs calibration. I've had mine for a couple of years and have had nothing but pin sharp images from it. Check out the Canon's CPS site. If you have a couple of pro bodies and pro L lenses you can join the CPS and their dedicated engineers we'll take a bit more care with it.. most of the time
Ive had this lens a year or 2 and have nothing but praise for it,I mainly use it for badgers and you can count every hair on their heads-works great with a 1.4x as well
Front and back focusing is a fact of life. It might not be RIGHT but it exists.
The 70-200 f/.8 is (IMO) one of the sharpest in the Canon line up and can easily match (and often out perform) most of Canon's primes. If (accepting you technique is spot on of course ) you are not getting pin sharp images, then it does suggest that either the lens alignment is not quite right or that it is back/front focusing.
Have you tried using a test chart with it to determine the latter?
Not i haven't Barrie. Front and back focusing issues have always been other people's problems .... or so i thought!!! Is there a test chart you can let me have info on?
Graeme,
The 70-200/2.8 IS I have is every bit as sharp wide open as any other Canon tele I have or have owned in the past do not let ppl persuade you that this lens is not one of the best zoom lenses made.
If I were you I would seriously consider sending it to a company like Fixation or Johnstones in Glasgow for testing and get them to give you a quote for repair. (Johnstones seem to charge £150-250 for anything I've ever had them look at).
Graeme,
I have similar problems with a 100-400 IS L lens where the images are just not sharp. I am a Canon CPS member and I spoke to them and returned the lens to be calibrated and checked. I receivedthe lens after two weeks at a cot of £125.
The lens is now worse than when i sent it away and i am in the process of trying to resolve it, I would bear this in mind if you intend to send it back to Canon.
My advice would be to trade in the 70-200 f2.8 L IS for the 70-200 F4 L IS.
The new IS version of the F4 70-200 is the sharpest zoom lens Canon makes, it is sharp wide open, and sharp at all focal lengths. It is lighter, cheaper and the IS is the latest version from Canon. Unless you shoot a lot at f2.8 I would trade 'down' to the F4 version, you will get a pin sharp lens and won't have to carry such a heavy lens around all day.
As perhaps you do realise, the maximum possible aperture has little to do with whether actually you shoot at that aperture (I would guess very few do). The amount of light entering a lens with a max aperture of 2.8 is TWICE that entering an f/4 lens and that makes an enormous difference to the viewfinder brightness and AF speed and accuracy. It is why it is a lens of choice of the majority of us pro press snappers. If it were not the case, believe me, we would welcome any opportunity to reduce the weight of the kit we have to carry
I have been looking at my images of my 300d with the 70-200 f4 non IS and the image quality is absolutely outstanding!! I traded this lens in for the 2.8 is because i wanted a lens with range for shots of my children indoors and outdoors. Interesting that Barry mentions the viewfinder as i had a lot of issues with the viewfinder with the f4 version in really low light. I assumed that was just because it was dark
Again, thanks for the useful info. Really miffed as it is out of warranty by 2 months and i'm skint!!! Should have looked at this ages ago
If you want the lens for shooting kids indoors & outdoors, then keep the 70-200/2.8 and get it checked out. It's one of the best lenses around for photographing people. The reach is perfect, and the 2.8 gives a very snappy focus, even in low light.
I know others like the f4...but I wouldn't trade my f2.8 for one. The only grumble I have with the 2.8 is the poor design of the switches on the barrel - it's far to easy to knock the raised AF switch to the off position, something I manage to do regularly .
Do you use a skylight or uv filter on your lens? I ordered a 400mm 5.6L which was the second I'd had after the first was stolen. Because I'd already had one, I knew it was a very sharp lens. But the second one just wasn't sharp. I was on the brink of sending it back before I shot a comparison with and without the skylight filter (which I had put on for some coastal shooting (protection from sea spray.sand etc). The filter was a Hoya skylight and the image was blurry with it but tack sharp without. I have several carefully made comparison shots and the difference is astonishing. I now use a B+W multicoated UV filter on the 400 when I need a bit of lens protection. Infact I've been leaving it on all the time lately because I did some comparisons with and without it and somehow the shots with the B&W seem to be a tiny fraction sharper WITH the B&W than without! What a difference a slither of glass makes......
I have a 70-200 IS 2.8L but not much to add to what everyone else has written. Just another voice saying that my 70-200 is every bit as sharp as its reputation. If its not a filter causing your problems then sorry to say yours sounds underparr - its so frustrating when that happens. I recently ordered a Sigma 150mm macro. I ended up trying two of them and then giving up because they just weren't sharp compared to my 70-200 with extension tubes (despite hearing great reviews about the sigma). I'm still umming and arring about a macro now - tempted to try the tamron 180 as can't afford the canon 180 and have been put off sigma. (Interested in hearing feedback from anyone with a tamron 180 macro by the way)
Good luck with getting your lens sorted.
One more thing: as with all zoom lenses you shouldn't focus and then zoom. Without a built in back focus adjustment as on movie cameras, its hit and miss as to whether focus will stay constant throughout the zoom range on a stills camera and its pretty certain it won't. So (and sorry if this is sucking eggs for you), if you focus and then zoom in or out without refocusing, focus has probably shifted away from your subject a bit.
Thanks Mike. I'm aware of the zoom then focus, but then you may have seen my images and that's why you mentioned it
Yes i did have a filter on it and probably the same hoya you mentioned but i took that off thinking it maybe that - always wondered why i bought a £1500 lens and then slapped a £20 bit of glass on the front i know it's protection but it's now off and no different to be honest
Graeme,
Sorry for the late reply regarding the lens. I have spoken to Canon since receiving my lens back and they had no problem in sending a courier to pick up my lens and repair it free of charge.
Discussion
20 repliesI have had this lens a fair time now and I'm not, nor have I ever been, particularly impressed with it. I think for the money, I should be impressed with it, but am I judging too harshly compared to my 500/4is? I know that it is possibly imcomparable, but i don't think I get the quality I should be getting from it.
The problem I get it is seems a bit noisy and lacks critical detail. With the 500/4, I view everything at 100% in C1 and judge the quality accordingly. If it's not pin sharp, it pretty much goes. If I do the same with the 70-200, I notice a distinct difference in quality.
I have read reviews on Fred Miranda, and 95% of people say this lens is pin sharp. I don't think mine is, but am I expecting too much? Stopping down doesn't make a huge difference in quality
Also, some people said they returned their lens to Canon and it made a huge difference when returned. What sorts of things would Canon do to the lens an at what price? I think it may be just out of warranty.
Can anyone offer any comments on this, or do I need to elaborate a bit more and perhaps post an image crop?
I am still laying on my stomach due to a back problem
Yes it sounds like something isnt right. I've never owned a 70-200 IS but i know that it i meant to be almost as good as the 80-200 f2.8L.
It sounds like yours has poor "micro contrast" its the same with the Nikkor 18-70 and 18-35.
Both are sharp at the same focal lengths, but the 18-35 renders more detail in low contrast areas.
I would recommend sending it to Lehmann's for a calibration check and test.
Might be worth checking out
Hope the old spine un-crinkles itself soon
Regards
Andy
Sounds like it needs calibration. I've had mine for a couple of years and have had nothing but pin sharp images from it. Check out the Canon's CPS site. If you have a couple of pro bodies and pro L lenses you can join the CPS and their dedicated engineers we'll take a bit more care with it.. most of the time
Any idea of costs for calibration?
Elliott, I haven't got the necessary kit
Anyone want to register their kit in my name?
The 70-200 f/.8 is (IMO) one of the sharpest in the Canon line up and can easily match (and often out perform) most of Canon's primes. If (accepting you technique is spot on of course
Have you tried using a test chart with it to determine the latter?
Barrie
The 70-200/2.8 IS I have is every bit as sharp wide open as any other Canon tele I have or have owned in the past do not let ppl persuade you that this lens is not one of the best zoom lenses made.
If I were you I would seriously consider sending it to a company like Fixation or Johnstones in Glasgow for testing and get them to give you a quote for repair. (Johnstones seem to charge £150-250 for anything I've ever had them look at).
I've just e-mailed you a focus test chart and instructions (used the e-mail adress from your website)
Should keep you busy whilst you're laid up
Good luck
I have similar problems with a 100-400 IS L lens where the images are just not sharp. I am a Canon CPS member and I spoke to them and returned the lens to be calibrated and checked. I receivedthe lens after two weeks at a cot of £125.
The lens is now worse than when i sent it away and i am in the process of trying to resolve it, I would bear this in mind if you intend to send it back to Canon.
Good Luck
Geoff, I assume you can get them to look at it again at no cost? Surely!!!
My advice would be to trade in the 70-200 f2.8 L IS for the 70-200 F4 L IS.
The new IS version of the F4 70-200 is the sharpest zoom lens Canon makes, it is sharp wide open, and sharp at all focal lengths. It is lighter, cheaper and the IS is the latest version from Canon. Unless you shoot a lot at f2.8 I would trade 'down' to the F4 version, you will get a pin sharp lens and won't have to carry such a heavy lens around all day.
Check out these reviews ;
Photozone 70-200 F4 IS L review
Slrgear review
cheers
Sean
As perhaps you do realise, the maximum possible aperture has little to do with whether actually you shoot at that aperture (I would guess very few do). The amount of light entering a lens with a max aperture of 2.8 is TWICE that entering an f/4 lens and that makes an enormous difference to the viewfinder brightness and AF speed and accuracy. It is why it is a lens of choice of the majority of us pro press snappers. If it were not the case, believe me, we would welcome any opportunity to reduce the weight of the kit we have to carry
Barrie
Again, thanks for the useful info. Really miffed as it is out of warranty by 2 months and i'm skint!!! Should have looked at this ages ago
If you want the lens for shooting kids indoors & outdoors, then keep the 70-200/2.8 and get it checked out. It's one of the best lenses around for photographing people. The reach is perfect, and the 2.8 gives a very snappy focus, even in low light.
I know others like the f4...but I wouldn't trade my f2.8 for one. The only grumble I have with the 2.8 is the poor design of the switches on the barrel - it's far to easy to knock the raised AF switch to the off position, something I manage to do regularly
Good luck with getting it sorted!
I have a 70-200 IS 2.8L but not much to add to what everyone else has written. Just another voice saying that my 70-200 is every bit as sharp as its reputation. If its not a filter causing your problems then sorry to say yours sounds underparr - its so frustrating when that happens. I recently ordered a Sigma 150mm macro. I ended up trying two of them and then giving up because they just weren't sharp compared to my 70-200 with extension tubes (despite hearing great reviews about the sigma). I'm still umming and arring about a macro now - tempted to try the tamron 180 as can't afford the canon 180 and have been put off sigma. (Interested in hearing feedback from anyone with a tamron 180 macro by the way)
Good luck with getting your lens sorted.
One more thing: as with all zoom lenses you shouldn't focus and then zoom. Without a built in back focus adjustment as on movie cameras, its hit and miss as to whether focus will stay constant throughout the zoom range on a stills camera and its pretty certain it won't. So (and sorry if this is sucking eggs for you), if you focus and then zoom in or out without refocusing, focus has probably shifted away from your subject a bit.
Yes i did have a filter on it and probably the same hoya you mentioned but i took that off thinking it maybe that - always wondered why i bought a £1500 lens and then slapped a £20 bit of glass on the front
Thanks for the suggestion
Sorry for the late reply regarding the lens. I have spoken to Canon since receiving my lens back and they had no problem in sending a courier to pick up my lens and repair it free of charge.