User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  6
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS?

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Veteran rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS?

    I had noticed another AP member's thread on the 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens and some of its shortcomings. The delivery dates for this lens might be important because my problems started about the same time.

    I have been using a 7D for about a year and had a 100-400 L IS on it but I wanted to get the f2.8 aperture so invested in the 70-200 at considerable expense. For the first few months I only used it with manual focus just to find out what it could do....so far so good. The chance to put it into sport came about 6 weeks ago and since I had permanent settings in C.1 on the function dial (ie:-Burst mode on high, ISO 250, shutter 1/1250 sec. and AI servo), this is what I used for the 100-400. To my consternation (although the LCD showed the shots to be OK at the ground) when I started processing the images after the first shoot six weeks ago I was apalled at the results. Tried changing all the camera settings I could think of but still the same results....absolutely terrible!!

    Last weekend I took the 7D again but with the 100-400 back on it and I have placed the images below:-
    (Shot #1 is f2.8, IS on, 1/1250 sec. burst @195mm length, ISo 250 white square showing auto focus point)
    (Shot #2 is as above but @ 153mm length)
    (Shot #3 is f5.6, IS on the 100-400 lens, 1/1250sec. ISO 250 @220mm length)

    The first respose will be that the three comparison shots were taken under vastly different weather conditions, forget suggesting that as the reason, it just happened that these were the first 3 shots of the same sport at roughly the same focal length on the same camera body and with the same settings. Although I have not done any exhaustive testing with the 70-200 f2.8, also have not re-set the camera to correct back/front focus for this unit, I trust the 7D too much to suggest that this lens is anything but a DUD

    Richard
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by rwg717; 18-05-2010 at 8:54pm.
    I've been wrong before!! Happy to have constructive criticism though.Gear used Canon 50D, 7D & 5DMkII plus expensive things hanging off their fronts and of course a "nifty fifty".

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You have not stated which focus points were used, that may be the identifying problem, hopefully

  3. #3
    The Commander mikew09's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 May 2009
    Location
    Lowood, Queenland
    Posts
    4,285
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Doesn't seem right from all that I have heard and seen of this lens. I can find the thread now but I can remeber reading about rare but odd bad copy of a lens. May get it back to canon for a calibration check or the like. I can understand your frustration, been there myself but with a non L lens.

    Hope it gets sorted.

    Cheers,

    Mike
    Please be honest with your Critique of my images. I may not always agree, but I will not be offended - CC assists my learning and is always appreciated

    http://mikeathome.fotomerchant.com/

    Canon 5D3 - Gripped, EF 70-200 L 4 USM, , 24-105 L 5 IS USM, 580 EX II Speedlite, 2x 430 Ex II Speedlite


  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    08 May 2009
    Location
    Buninyong
    Posts
    1,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mine is back with Canon to be checked out as I have had the same issue. I sent them my test photos from this thread and an explanation of the issue and they said it was definately not right and to send it back straight away. And now I wait!
    Mic

    Photography is the art of telling stories with light.

    www.michaelgoulding.com

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Sep 2009
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    this is a long shot ..... but do u have a filter at all on the 70-200? I know when i first got mine it had this cheap polariser attached and all my footy shot came out blurry. It was doing my head in till i realised it was the filter

  6. #6
    Shore Crawler Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,383
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    never done sport , but from the 2 wedding shoots so far, AI servo at F2.8 at slower shutter speeds and higher iso have gone fine ......
    Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
    Canon EOS 5dmk3 : 17-40 F4 L, 70-200F2.8 canon L, 24-70mm canon L, Gitzo Safari +1178 ballhead. |Canon 5dmkII, 16-35mmF2.8 II L, Gitzo 2541 )
    Singh Ray/Hitech/Lee assorted filters, Z pro modified system Cokin holder
    Post : Lightroom 3.6 catalogue -> Export as 16bit TIFF, Edited CS5 -> resized for web.

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JM Tran View Post
    You have not stated which focus points were used, that may be the identifying problem, hopefully
    Single focus point used, shot #1 shows where it selected with the hand drawn white square on forearm, #2 is the same point on the other arm). Have used the lens with all points selected, still a failure!

    Richard

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS?

    I just think you've missed focus on #1, how do you actually know the focus point by the way ?

    The other two look ok fir where you are focussing (don't focus so low by the way)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  9. #9
    Member nwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Apr 2010
    Location
    melbs
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yeh what focus servo were you using. if not the ai servo than for sure change to that and see what the outcome is. also are you using the pre focus button to enable the lens to adjust before you press the trigger. i started to do this so that i can could track the subject before the frame i wanted to capture. your 100-400 looked killer, i kind of want one now!

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Regular FallingHorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 2010
    Location
    Adelaide River
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Only a noob and I'm waiting for my 70-200 2.8 IS to arrive but the bokeh looks a bit strange on the first 2 shots ??

  11. #11
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by etherial View Post
    Mine is back with Canon to be checked out as I have had the same issue. I sent them my test photos from this thread and an explanation of the issue and they said it was definately not right and to send it back straight away. And now I wait!
    Thanks for the response Mic, will let you know how I go with this
    Richard

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Regnis View Post
    this is a long shot ..... but do u have a filter at all on the 70-200? I know when i first got mine it had this cheap polariser attached and all my footy shot came out blurry. It was doing my head in till i realised it was the filter
    Thanks for the suggestion, did not mention it in the thread but it is actually the same UV 77 mm Hoya on shots #1, #2 and #3....cheers
    Richard

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post
    I just think you've missed focus on #1, how do you actually know the focus point by the way ?

    The other two look ok fir where you are focussing (don't focus so low by the way)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Red focus point comes "on" in the view finder....remember shot 3 is NOT taken with 70-200
    Richard

  14. #14
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nwoody View Post
    yeh what focus servo were you using. if not the ai servo than for sure change to that and see what the outcome is. also are you using the pre focus button to enable the lens to adjust before you press the trigger. i started to do this so that i can could track the subject before the frame i wanted to capture. your 100-400 looked killer, i kind of want one now!
    Thanks for that, in the original thread see line 3 and two thirds along says "Ai servo", same setting for the 100-400....no change on the camera body....just a lens change and huge difference in quality
    Richard

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FallingHorse View Post
    Only a noob and I'm waiting for my 70-200 2.8 IS to arrive but the bokeh looks a bit strange on the first 2 shots ??
    Thanks for the reply, I actually had the f4 non-stabilised version of this lens for years and it was a cracker, did everything I asked of it except it wasn't big enough to accomodate f2.8 shots which I insist upon for this sort of work. I'm not putting "crap" on Canon, I like their gear but I object to paying a lot of money for something which doesn't produce the goods! Remember, these have "Made in Japan" written on them....very un-Japanese for Canon to let a lens like this one slip through their quality control, anyway hope you have better luck with yours, I'm quietly confident that you will...but this one is going back to Canon.

    The BOKEH (#1 and #2) is strange because the auto-focus is either front or back focusing, I only take the shots and don't calibrate the lens, that's the manufacturer's job
    Richard

  16. #16
    Member Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 May 2010
    Location
    Forest Hill
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I ever encounter Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS which consistently out of focus when zoomed at 200mm, otherwise always focus on the spot.
    Try to shoot using the lens in various zoom positions.

  17. #17
    Member James T's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Jan 2010
    Location
    St Kilda
    Posts
    377
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Doesn't look right does it. Did you have IS on or off? Not that that should make so much difference.

    You need to do some controlled tests though before making any conclusions. It's front focussed by a long way in the 1st one, I'd be very surprised if a lens was 'out' by that far.

    The bokeh does look very odd, it was actually the first thing I noticed. It has the classic diagonal pattern often associated with sub-par UV filters.

  18. #18
    Member Omytion's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    65
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by James T View Post
    Doesn't look right does it. Did you have IS on or off? Not that that should make so much difference.

    You need to do some controlled tests though before making any conclusions. It's front focussed by a long way in the 1st one, I'd be very surprised if a lens was 'out' by that far.

    The bokeh does look very odd, it was actually the first thing I noticed. It has the classic diagonal pattern often associated with sub-par UV filters.
    Agreed. This kind of crappy bokeh drove me mad when using this lens and also the 100-400 until I took the filters off. I bought a better one since then which is much better, although I'll still use it without a filter in controlled environments.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •