Thanks Jon! I think you are right.
I think I should return it now, I was just testing myCanon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II with my oldCanon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS and the 55-250($230) Was slighty sharper at f5.6 in the corners, then my 70-200($2300) at f2.8.
I do not think it should be that way, should it? A $230 lens beating a $2300 lens for corner sharpness? Looking at the#mce_temp_url#seems to say this as well.
Originally Posted by Elon Gane
I agree, it should not. I've never owned a zoom as sharp @ f/2.8 as my 70-200, and I would expect it to be sharper than the 55-200. Bryan's crops seem to bear that out (though you have to be careful comparing a crop with a 40D to one with a 5DII because they have different pixel densities and different corners).
I wasn't sure if I should mention this, because I don't have hard data to back it up, but it is my impression that my 70-200 is very sharp in the 1.6fovcf area (away from the extreme full frame corners). With a 2x extender it absolutely kills the Mk 1.
If you can arrange it so Amazon sends you a new lens in time, I say go for it.
Usually, no, it's shouldn't be that way. Especially not in your case. But sometimes it is normal and expected. For example, the $100 50mm f/1.8 beats the $1500 f/1.2 in corner sharpness at *every* f-number:
50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 vs 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.8.
But that's normal because the f/1.2 has to be that soft in order to be optimized for bokeh. But in your case, it seems like the 70-200 is soft because of a defect, not as a purposeful part of the design. []
At 1.8, it looks pretty darn good in the center and mid-frame, too! [Y]
Couldn't they now use the microadjustment to make it soft rather than having a special lens, or does that not help?
@OP:If you wouldn't have sent it in to Amazon for a new one,I don't think Canon covers the shippingTO the factory for repairs under warranty. They advise you send the broken item insured and trackable. I think it cost me $70. When repaired, they will send it back the same way..not the "broken" part.
Greg
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
They could, but it wouldn't help, because it takes a certain kind of softness to improve bokeh: undercorrected spherical aberration.
Thanks again everybody!
I have done more testing and it turns out that the soft corner problem is just at close focusingdistances only, When I tested myCanon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II with myCanon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS focusing at the Moon in the corner, My70-200mm f/2.8 is a lot sharper then my55-250mm f/4-5.6. But then at closefocusingdistances my 55-250mm f4-5.6 is sharper then my 70-200mm f2.8 in the corners. Should it be that way?
Should I still return myCanon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II?
Possibly a stupid question but... did you have the IS on when you shot from the tripod? I believe you should turn it off as it would actually try to compensate for a movement of the lens that is not there. Give it a try and see whether it makes any difference.
Good luck!
<div>
</div>
The IS on this lens (as on most newer lenses with IS) is tripod-sensing, and disables itself when the camera/lens is on a stable support. However, if the tripod isn't a good one, the vibrations might not be reduced enough for the lens to determine that it's mounted on a tripod.
How close is 'close'?
You're probably going to shoot things other than the moon. I think the bottom line is if you're seeing soft corners at distances you intend to shoot, then get it fixed/replaced.
Turning IS on or off doesn't seem to make any difference.
By 'close' I mean around the minimum focus distance.A lot of my photos I take are near the MFD. I think I will return it for a new one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote