CANON 70-200mm f2.8 IS

C

casper

Messages
25
Edit My Images
No
Any ideas on wether this lens is a sharp as they say, I have just purchased one and it is no where near as sharp as the lens I sold . (Canon 70-200mm F4):thumbsdown:
 
All the reviews I've read generally acclaim this lens - but there is, apparently, a slight difference between the IS and non-IS versions. I have the f/4 version and found it to be excellent - you tried with IS turned on and turned off for comparisons?

Its not likely, but there may be a chance it needs to be taken to a service centre......:shrug:
 
interested to find the answer to this. Every review I have read says its the sharpest.

I will hold onto my money while I watch the answers
 
Any images with exif you can show? I've had both. IQ is very similar but the IS excels in lower light.

The sharpest of the 70-200s was always regarded a toss up between the two non-IS lenses. Some said f2.8L and others said f4L However I've not been able to really see any diffeence in any of them.

Blue-Heron-Web.jpg


I love this lens :)
 
Maybe I am being to critical. I like to see if I have hit one on the nail and view at Actual pixels and normally get one smooth photo. Would this be wrong? Normally,(with the test shots taken) I have not nailed anything yet.
It is not that I have got bad kit to test against (17-40~24-70~300mmF4~50mmmk2, which is without doubt one of the best lenses, forget the cost and build it is about what you see, this is so sharp, better than the 70-200 IS !!!!!)
 
I've got the f2.8 IS, but have no experience of the f4 version. For sharpness it is way out infront of all the other zoom lenses I have, probably better than the Sigma 105 prime.
 
casper said:
Maybe I am being to critical. I like to see if I have hit one on the nail and view at Actual pixels and normally get one smooth photo. Would this be wrong? Normally,(with the test shots taken) I have not nailed anything yet.
It is not that I have got bad kit to test against (17-40~24-70~300mmF4~50mmmk2, which is without doubt one of the best lenses, forget the cost and build it is about what you see, this is so sharp, better than the 70-200 IS !!!!!)
Click to expand...

You should still be able to tell at 100% whether the image is sharp. Much as i hate to admit it, sounds like you may need to get that glass checked
 
non-IS versions are supposedly sharper I'm inclined to believe, but then when you get down to pixel peeping are you really bothered about the quality of your photos at that level or the quality of your equipment? there's an arguement in that somewhere.
understandably you can get an utter dog of a lens, being neither accurate nor sharp - in cases such as this, you will concede, a fairly quick assessment will reveal the problem with very little up-close scrutiny - but all things equal/at the end of the day/when it all boils down to it (choose the phrase that best suits you!) its whether the final result i.e. the picture, is as good as you intended it to be, if not then re-assess your technique perhaps. the 70-200 range of lenses made by canon are excellent and generally produce similarly excellent photos, whether you chose f2.8 or f4 is up to needs/budget yet the results will still be great. regardless of which one you have/want/use (again choose the right one) IQ will be a cut above the rest I'm willing to bet.
 
All valid points taken. Regarding technique, I agree we are all sloppy at times, hence why I shot some more making sure it was as little to do with me, (I think)?
 
casper said:
I have just purchased one and it is no where near as sharp as the lens I sold . (Canon 70-200mm F4):thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Correct, the F4 is generally sharper at a given focal length and aperture than the F2.8 IS right through the range, of course it doesn't have F2.8 or IS.
 
f4 vs 2.8 could mean a shot or not...f4 IS has a newer version if IS if I read correctly, though still a whole stop slower in the glass
 
dod said:
Correct, the F4 is generally sharper at a given focal length and aperture than the F2.8 IS right through the range, of course it doesn't have F2.8 or IS.
Click to expand...

Serious testing with proper set ups will show the non-IS lenses slightly higher in resolution (sharper) but on your screen you are unlikely to see any difference.

Before thinking it's the glass, try and shoot some normal scenes or set up a standard shot to check focus.

User error is very easy with this lens. At f2.8 and having a close subject the depth of field is very narrow indeed. It takes time to learn how to use a beast such as this. Once you realise the limits it will serve you well.
 
Have you sent it off already?

I would bet on technique...I know how many mistakes I made with my 2,8 IS.

It is quite acceptably sharp to me, especially from 4 upwards BUT it is a demanding beast initially.:rules:
 
Anton Roland said:
It is quite acceptably sharp to me, especially from 4 upwards BUT it is a demanding beast initially.:rules:
Click to expand...

How true... been there and have ordered the T-Shirt.
 
sounds like the 24-70...amazingly crispy but get it even a mite wrong and it'll brutalise your images in a way that'll have you wincing for weeks...
 
shiato storm said:
sounds like the 24-70...amazingly crispy but get it even a mite wrong and it'll brutalise your images in a way that'll have you wincing for weeks...
Click to expand...
I'll second that :/
 
I was told that of all the lenses Canon produced to date the 70-200 2,8 IS and the 24-70 2,8 were the absolute classics.

Looks like they are equally unforgiving and demanding then?
 
I can understand how (having more than enough personal experience) one can get it wrong with the 70-200.

How does the 24-70 bite then?:bat:
 
well, many users claim theirs is poo cause it doesn't focus or it doesn't stay sharp or one thing and another, utter twaddle most of the time. I've sometimes come away thinking i'm a complete 4rse for fuzzing a shot but then check settings and see I'm to blame. its ruthless. 2.8 uses more af points (af area expands with wider apps) so its possible a secondary point is used some times, this and the fact that 2.8 is very narrow means miss it: miss it a lot...
I dunno how to explain it but you know how it is, get the settings wrong and you can still get an image, the 24-70 is not forgiving. it detatches itself from the body, rises seveal feet in the air and plumets straight to your waiting skull...I've had amazing shots with it, flawless, and I've consigned a few to the great digital bin in the sky...I do like it though. its a weapon both on and off the camera too!
 
Buy a kevlar helmet with it then, shall I?:LOL:

This is still on my wish list but hopefully soon - not an absolute need now...

Thanks for the advice though(y)
 
it is very good as a pseudo macro I'd have to add, have some great up-close shots with it. not a true macro (1:1 stylee) but reasonable, IQ is of course maintained excellent at this length also.
 
I wonder if the weight of these lenses adds anything to their initial difficulty to use. I'd bet a fair number of people who get them are not used to trying to focus at such narrow apertures which such a heavy lens. The 85 f/1.8 is less than half the weight of the 24-70L and the 50 f/1.4 is less than 1/3 it's weight. As for the flyweight 50 f/1.8...

Likewise the 70-200 f/4 is half the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8.

Just a thought :)
 
Dunno

I would have thought the weight would have a stabilizing effect?
 
Its weight is a big issue for many. It's not that heavy but ifyou are used to a 350D and an 18-55 then the weight of this lens feels huge.

The f4 and f4 IS versions are very nice. Heavy to some but in use it balanced very well.

If you carry around the 2.8L IS all day it can be a pain iun the neck so to speak (literally a pain in the neck/back).

The images though make up for it and you do get used to the lens weight.
 
Yeah :agree: its heavy, but its a beautiful lens. I take it everywhere. Hours, days or weeks.
The weight is outweighed :) by the shots you get.... once as has been sed a few times here, once you've learned how to use it.
 
Anton Roland said:
Dunno

I would have thought the weight would have a stabilizing effect?
Click to expand...


:thinking: Erm..wouldn't that mean there was no need for IS? :D

I agree with the other posters that the images from them are great if one's willing to put up with the weight.
 
the weight of the lens balances the weight of the camera body when attached and to some extents may appear to stabilise the combination...but the weight of the lens can mean fine control is tricky - perhaps harder than other lenses and given the tight DoF higher risk of errors...of course this may be so completely wrong - i'm just throwing ideas about in the open.
Another idea is start going to the gym before you buy a 2.8 lens!
 
Hmmmm
I make mistakes definitely, but on a tripod and still not sharp? @F5.6 1/640sec??
I also have 24-70/17-40/300 etc so weight I am used to!I do not find it that heavy even on a 1dmk2
Go to the gym(only for lazy show offs)!! I am also a very high category rider(bike) and train 5-6days a week 10-15hrs, so I am hardly weak or lazy.
However I am still human and came here for any other lenses that might have had a fault, not sheer ridicule.
 
Double_Agent said:
Yep buy it and give it to me Steve!! I will show you how to put it to good use.
Click to expand...

You have been warned about doing THAT to decent lenses. I mean, after the vicor incident I would have thought you would have learnt!

:razz:
 
casper said:
Hmmmm
I make mistakes definitely, but on a tripod and still not sharp? @F5.6 1/640sec??
I also have 24-70/17-40/300 etc so weight I am used to!I do not find it that heavy even on a 1dmk2
Go to the gym(only for lazy show offs)!! I am also a very high category rider(bike) and train 5-6days a week 10-15hrs, so I am hardly weak or lazy.
However I am still human and came here for any other lenses that might have had a fault, not sheer ridicule.
Click to expand...

OK back down a bit and get of your high horse old man....

This here was purely friendly banter and nothing aimed at ridiculing you. If you (hopefully) stick around a few more months you will begin to pick up on certain patterns and people new to big, heavy lenses are one of them:bonk:

We all made those mistakes and some of us still make them so do hang around and learn from the gems inbetween the banter.

Believe me there are are photography forums out there where you will get a much less friendly reception:bat: :D

Why don't you post some examples and give brief descriptions of your camera settings?
 
casper ... It sounds to me like you need to send this lens back to Canon and get it checked out.

I have no problems with my version but if I did I would get it checked out properly. It is a lot of money to be tied up with something that is not right.

On a side note ... Nobody was ridiculing you as far as I could see. Friendly banter is what sets this forum apart from others I have joined. Take the joke in the good nature that I'm sure was intended.

:canon: When mine works
 
Have to say i find this lens to be as sharp as any i have.

Although having said that two people i know have sent this lens back, but this has been due to IS problems.

As above best to get it checked out.

The below was taken with the mentioned lens, about 10 secs before i had to move rather sharpish to avoid having a lens holder created in my chest.:eek:

IMG_8827.jpg
 
lens at Canon now, interested to see how long they take?
watch this space, I will post with result.
 
Oh! By the way,sorry about my poor sense of humour:)
Joke:
what has a 9v battery and a male/female(depending on your sex)privates got in common ?
you will lick them at some point !
Hope that is not to near the knuckle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top