Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) Sharpness Test #2

jamesino · Sep 24, 2008

I posted a series of sharpness test before on this forum and still unsure whether my copy is sharp or not, I worked on my skill this lens some more and have provided the following images to test. All shots were taken at ISO 100 and Wide open at f/4. The body used was a 400D/Xti and the AF point was selected manually without recomposing. I realized that these shots were not taken on a tripod, but if these shots were, would these shots fall within the acceptable sharpness range of a 70-200 f/4L?

All shots were taken in RAW and converted to PNG in ACR 4.5 without any post-processing or sharpening. The photos are all full-frame with a 100% crop inset.

Test 1
1/2500, 118mm

Test 2
1/3200s, 81mm

Test 3
1/640s, 126mm

Test 4
1/800s, 149mm

Test 5
1/640s, 91mm

petercox · Sep 24, 2008

Resolution here appears good. I wouldn't worry about the quality of your copy - looks similar to what I get on my 70-200 f/2.8. Your shutter speeds are also fast enough here that the lack of a tripod probably isn't contributing a huge amount to the test.

Colour and contrast are also looking good here.

Cheers,
Peter

jcolman · Sep 24, 2008

Looks fine to me too.

rebelboy · Oct 11, 2008

try to this tips before test and i think you are going to get good results.

Montana · Oct 11, 2008

They look fine to me too. Do you personally feel its soft? I think you may have unreal expectations of this lens. This is a very sharp lens, and your copy looks fine to me.

Derrick

Overread · Oct 12, 2008

jamesino said:
All shots were taken in RAW and converted to PNG in ACR 4.5 without any post-processing or sharpening. The photos are all full-frame with a 100% crop inset.

Remember that RAW is always softer than JPEG as it does not get the incamera sharpening treatment - most RAW photos need/benefit from sharpening in editing.
Taking that into account I would say your 70-200mm is a sharp lens.

Do'Urden's Eyes · Oct 13, 2008

Overread said:
Remember that RAW is always softer than JPEG as it does not get the incamera sharpening treatment - most RAW photos need/benefit from sharpening in editing.
Taking that into account I would say your 70-200mm is a sharp lens.

really? i wasnt aware of that. im looking into shooting raw i should buy a book.

Overread · Oct 13, 2008

when you take a JPEG shot the camera applies its own internal sharpening, noise reduction, contrast and white blance to that shot (with a DSLR you get to alter theses settings as to how much or little they are) but they are still added. When you take a RAW shot these settings are not applied to the RAW shot = its raw data.

However all cameras have an inherent level of adjustments to a shot that they do make - ergo why some have better noise control than others - a RAW gets just this basic editing nothing more. Ergo most RAW shots look a little softer than a JPEG shot since the JPEG has already had one round of sharpening in camera

Alleh Lindquist · Oct 13, 2008

The 70-200 F4 is super sharp I prefer it to a 2.8 any day. Then again I don't need a low light lens very often.

elemental · Oct 13, 2008

Alleh Lindquist said:
The 70-200 F4 is super sharp I prefer it to a 2.8 any day. Then again I don't need a low light lens very often.

I'm sure the 2.8 at f/2.8 is not as sharp as the 4 at f/4, but which is sharper at f/4?

I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm curious. I shoot a lot of low light and shallow depth-of-field stuff, so I usually end up wide open. Also, my cheap lenses' "sweet spots" are pretty much just the price tags. Except my 50mm f/2s, which absolutely destroy my kit zooms at approximately 1/10th of the price. They may be mediocre for primes, but that's still pretty darn good on the whole spectrum.

Overread · Oct 14, 2008

I think the f4 is still rated as being slightly sharper at f4 than the f2.8. However in all honesty we are really into the pixelpeeping zones between the two and a lot of the time shooting conditions are going to be playing a greater effect.
The entire Canon 70-200 L range are very sharp and good lenses overall - picking is very hard to do, but mostly its done on cost vs usage rather than sharpness - simply do you need IS and f2.8 and can you afford it

Tolyk · Oct 14, 2008

What distance were you shooting from? Where are you focusing? Do you need to be shooting at 1/3200th of a second? Why shoot wide open?

Tests 1, 2, and 3 all appear to have one softr eye, but I think it's more to do with shooting at F4 and being close to your subject than about the sharpness of the lens.

Village Idiot · Oct 14, 2008

Those are extremely sharp for being shot wide open and for being RAW files with no sharpening.

I think on one of the forums some one put up a post with Canon's recommended sharpening adjustments for RAW files from the camera. Plus you could stop that down to f/9 and have some even sharper files.