70-200 2.8 unsharp?

James306

James306

Messages
418
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I finally saved enough to buy myself the 70-200 2.8 IS L, having used one for a weekend car show last year I had to have one in my collection!

I picked it up from the post office this morning and spent the day wondering around Southsea seafront to play/test and found it to be coming up with soft results. I'm not sure if it's a 'soft copy' or if it's just short focusing but it's certainly not performing how I remember the last one did.

Here's a few shots. What do you guys think?

All photos unedited as they were from the camera.


Fishing boat by James-306, on Flickr


Chelle by James-306, on Flickr


Seagul by James-306, on Flickr


The 205 by James-306, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
The only one that jumps off the screen as having poor focus is the one of the lady - just looks soft around her hair, but that could just be a bit of movement, or just the fact that the fibre don't seem as sharp at this size. Like stated, 100% crops might help, especially if you can tally it up with the AF point you used on the day.

Personally, I think the number plate shots are fine.
 
I find number plates or anything with big details a poor way of testing a lens... shoot something with lots of recognisable small features like a persons face at f2.8 and show a 100% crop not a resize.. that will tell us more ... keep the exif intact as well..
 
Last edited:
girl shot is nowhere near sharp enough... presume shutter was reasonable speed?
 
KIPAX said:
girl shot is nowhere near sharp enough... presume shutter was reasonable speed?
Click to expand...

1/1000th of a second, f4, ISO100

This is what has me concerned, I fired off quite a lot of shots and the majority are as per that example. The lens I borrowed before I'm sure was pulling off sharp shots pretty much every time.

Do you think this could be a case of the a/f needs calibrating or could this lens be a soft copy?
 
James306 said:
1/1000th of a second, f4, ISO100

This is what has me concerned, I fired off quite a lot of shots and the majority are as per that example. The lens I borrowed before I'm sure was pulling off sharp shots pretty much every time.

Do you think this could be a case of the a/f needs calibrating or could this lens be a soft copy?
Click to expand...

could be af... theres lots of ways to test and everyone reckons they know best... as a sports shooter i find it easiest to shoot at someones feet stood on a playing field (or any short grass) at f2.8 .... you should be able to easilly see a long line of sharp grass where the feet are and faded into a blur as you look forward back

but a big ruler on an angle and shoot halfway down.. then see whats in focus can work as well :)
 
James306 said:
I don't believe it's the 40D as I have been firing off tack sharp images with other lenses all day. At the moment my Tamron 17-50 2.8 is blowing the 70-200 out the water at 100% for sharpness!

Here's some 100% crops for your opinions

<snip>
Click to expand...

Viewing images in isolation is pretty difficult, but since you have a lens of known quality, eg Tamron, then shoot side by side and compare. Even better if you can get hold of the original lens you borrowed.

I notice that a lot of your samples are shot into the light and if that's the Mk1 70-200 2.8 then that it's known to have a bit of flare at low f/numbers. One of the main things substantially improved with the Mk2.
 
James306 said:
Here's some 100% crops for your opinions
Click to expand...

The bird's sharp, the girl is slightly less so although you can still make out individual strands of hair. Looks fine to me :shrug:
 
Depends what you're happy with. I'd not be happy with any of them, but then I'm not happy with anything photography equipment related at the mo. :(
 
Were these all at the long end out of interest?

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is noticably softer at f/2.8 above about 180mm and sharpens up a lot if you stop down to f/4.
 
dont know the Canon 40d ..but are there selectable focus points..?

her hair is OOF but the stitching/buttons on her hip look ok
 
If you're having to look this hard to find out if it's not sharp and you're still not sure... isn't that a clue?
 
Vertigo1 said:
The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is noticably softer at f/2.8 above about 180mm and sharpens up a lot if you stop down to f/4.
Click to expand...

Agreed - from my experience with the Mk1. Possibly more so with longer subject distances too.

To the OP: they look fine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top