My Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II Soft at 2.8? Help!

[Elon Gane]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

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.

[Daniel Browning]

I do not think it should be that way, should it? A $230 lens beating a $2300 lens for corner sharpness?

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. []

[Alan]

For example, the $100 50mm f/1.8 beats the $1500 f/1.2 in corner sharpness at *every* f-number:


[url="http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3]50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 vs 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.8.[/url]



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

At 1.8, it looks pretty darn good in the center and mid-frame, too! [Y]

[bob williams]

<span>But I could send it to Canonfor adjustmentright? Would the warranty cover the costs?

I have had 4 experiences with the Canon service center, three of which were for lens calibration/adjustment. They never charged me a dime for those. So I will say yes,the warranty will cover the cost---if it is still under warranty.


Also, You paid $2000+ for that piece of glass---if you have questions or dissapointments, send it back to Canon and let them tell you it either needed calibration/adjustment or that it meets specification. Each time I have returned mine for this, they always came back with some sort of adjustment and working better than they did before. We have to remember that no matter how good these lenses are, they have gone through thousands of miles of abusive cargo handlers and the liklihood of knocking something out ofadjustment is fairly high.


For what it's worth, All 4 times I have sent my lenses out, they have been returnedin about two weeks (California Service Center).


Just my 2cw.


Bob

[canoli]

Doesn't Canon ask you for the body as well when you send in a lens for "recalibration"?


I read somewhere that front-focus / back-focus issues can only be resolved when you have both the lens and the body, and that they may be able to correct it for that lens/body combination - but your other lenses may perform differently after the adjustment. That's what's so great about bodies with the micro-adjustment feature - you can do it yourself.


I guess maybe for soft corners and other problems they can work with just the lens...(?)

[Elon Gane]

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?

[Wojciech Drzazgowski]

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!

[neuroanatomist]

<div>

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.

</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.

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?

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.

[Elon Gane]

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.