Disappointment with 70-200 f2.8 - I -

Hello to all,


I been waiting for a long time to have it. Now, time has come.


I feel a bit unease to say it but, on my 5D mk II or 50D, I find it disappointing (sharpness, AF precision, IS efficiency), for various outdoor work (sport, etc.)


I get much better pics with the 17-40 or 100 macro IS (ok, it's a prime).


70-200 is as good as my 24-105 (which is ...so, so), but not much.


I send it back to Canon for control, and wait. But ...


Do someone had same impressions with this first class lens, or is there a special way to use it ??


Thanks for your impressions.

I basically had the same reaction...then I did a microfocus adjustment on my 50D. After the MF adjustment, my keeper rate went up significantly. Set up a controlled test (camera on tripod), and see if the lens may be front/back focusing just a hair. If so, you can dial it in to work precisely how you need it to.

I have a 50D and my 70-200 2.8 IS and my 17-55 2.8 IS are my sharpest lens, both excellent and both better wide open than my 24-70 2.8 even after micro adjustment with the 24-70. I would recommend you try micro adjustment, but if it is the same with two different cameras, maybe you should exchange it for another copy.


Chris

I know what you mean, I have it on my XSi and I don't have the money to upgrade to a body with MF Adjust (yet!!!), so I have to used at least at f/4.0 to get some really good pictures, which is a pain the butt if you're shooting in low light...but still, pictures it's better than no pictures, right?


Do the MF Adjust...see what happens ;)

Sean, where did you MF your lens? Long end? Short end? Did you notice a change on the other end, then, in terms of sharpness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Sean, where did you MF your lens? Long end? Short end? Did you notice a change on the other end, then, in terms of sharpness?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Actually, I assumed that if I was using the 70-200, I'd likely be using it on the long end, so I MF adjusted it to 200mm. Fortunately, the change improved focus for the entire focal range.

If you bought it new, send it back. If you bought it used, now you know why someone sold it. I've had 3 of the lenses, none were really sharp. Very good, but not outstanding like my 70-200mm F4L IS.


From what testing I've seen, the mark II version is now the sharpest zoom Canon makes. A tiny bit sharper that the F4L IS, and less CA too. with a 1.4 TC, it beats the F4L with 1.4 TC.

According to Bryan's second test of a second 70-200 MKII lens, looks like Canon has some inconsistancies with QC unless I'm reading wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

I find it disappointing (sharpness, AF precision, IS efficiency), for various outdoor work (sport, etc.)

---

Tabazan,


You didn't tell us much. I have the old non-IS version and sometimes I think it's sharper wide openat f2.8 than stopped down to f4. It's a telephoto zoom and it has soft spots and sharp spots. It will never match the quality of a prime but will create some incredible images. It would be nice to know what focal lengths and what f-stops your're finding inadequate or sub-par. Can you post some test shots with exif, then the group here may be able to help you determine what course of action is best in your case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

I find it disappointing (sharpness, AF precision, IS efficiency), for various outdoor work (sport, etc.)

---

Tabazan,


You didn't tell us much. I have the old non-IS version and sometimes I think it's sharper wide openat f2.8 than stopped down to f4. It's a telephoto zoom and it has soft spots and sharp spots. It will never match the quality of a prime but will create some incredible images. It would be nice to know what focal lengths and what f-stops your're finding inadequate or sub-par. Can you post some test shots with exif, then the group here may be able to help you determine what course of action is best in your case?