Disappointment with 70-200 f2.8 - I -

[Tabazan]

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.

[Sean Setters]

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.

[Chris White]

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

[Dumien]

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

[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?

[Sean Setters]

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.

[scalesusa]

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.

[elmo_2006]

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.

[Chuck Lee]

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?

[Chuck Lee]

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?