Is there something wrong with my Canon 70-200?

[FidelCastrovich]

Hello all,

Please take a look at this picture and try to tell me if my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is less sharp than it should be.

I

I keep thinking that there's something wrong, but I'm not sure how to test this. I don't encounter this in my day to day work, because I don't shoot at these settings or from these distances very often, but whenever I happen to shoot soccer, I just go nuts at the utter lack of sharpness.

I should note that the lens was taken to a Canon authorized lab here and all they said was that it was very dusty inside and that after cleaning it should be much better. Well, it isn't.

So, is this the sharpness level I should expect or not?

Shot with a 7D, at 190mm, ISO 3200, f2.8

Thanks a lot,
Emil

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I have this lens and it sure does not look like that. But I don't shoot at ISO 3200 either. Have you shot at just a very low ISO, like 100 to compare? How did that come out? Can you share one at that setting?

 

[table1349]

EXIF IFD0

* Camera Make {0x010F} = Canon
* Camera Model {0x0110} = Canon EOS 7D
* X-Resolution {0x011A} = 72/1 ===> 72
* Y-Resolution {0x011B} = 72/1 ===> 72
* X/Y-Resolution Unit {0x0128} = inch (2)
* Last Modified Date/Time {0x0132} = 2010:11:07 11:39:38EXIF

Sub IFD

* Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) {0x829A} = 1/1000 second ===> 0.001 second
* Lens F-Number / F-Stop {0x829D} = 28/10 ===> ƒ/2.8
* Exposure Program {0x8822} = manual control (1)
* ISO Speed Ratings {0x8827} = 3200
* Unknown tag, Tagnum 0x8830 {0x8830} = data ===> 0
* EXIF Version {0x9000} = 0221
* Original Date/Time {0x9003} = 2010:11:05 19:35:42
* Digitization Date/Time {0x9004} = 2010:11:05 19:35:42
* Shutter Speed Value (APEX) {0x9201} = 9965784/1000000
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/1000 second
* Aperture Value (APEX) {0x9202} = 2970854/1000000
Aperture = ƒ/2.8
* Exposure Bias (EV) {0x9204} = 0/1 ===> 0
* Max Aperture Value (APEX) {0x9205} = 3/1 ===> 3
Max Aperture = ƒ/2.83
* Distance to Subject {0x9206} = 368/10 m
* Metering Mode {0x9207} = pattern / multi-segment (5)
* Flash {0x9209} = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
* Focal Length {0x920A} = 190/1 mm ===> 190 mm
* Original Subsecond Time {0x9291} = 12
* Digitized Subsecond Time {0x9292} = 12
* Focal Plane X-Resolution {0xA20E} = 5184000/907 ===> 5715.55
* Focal Plane Y-Resolution {0xA20F} = 3456000/595 ===> 5808.4
* Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit {0xA210} = inch (2)
* Custom Rendered {0xA401} = normal process (0)
* Exposure Mode {0xA402} = manual exposure (1)
* White Balance {0xA403} = auto (0)
* Scene Capture Type {0xA406} = standard (0)
* Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa431 {0xA431} = data ===> 380312275
* Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa432 {0xA432} = data ===> 70/1,200/1,0/0,0/0
* Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa434 {0xA434} = data ===> EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

 

[Overread20]

Shooting wide open (f2.8) and at a high ISO is going to affect your image quality. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L was always a little softer wide open than it was stopped down to say f4 - however it still produces a good level of image quality.

The real killer is your high ISO plus a 100% crop from a larger MP camera body like the 7D is going to look very different to a 100% crop from lower MP camera bodies because in effect you're looking at a larger magnification of the shot at the 100% because of all the extra MP present. (I might have explained that poorly).

In short its a limitation of shooting high ISOs when working in dimmer lighting conditions. A refinement of your sharpening and noise reduction processes might allow you to get a bit more quality out of your shots for printing and internet display and one should always remember that whilst attaining the best possible quality is important - we judge that point on the quality at the time of output. So to print or to the net rather than soley at 100% crop level (though it does provide a good benchmark point for us to work from).

 

[JerrfyLube]

Your looking at a 100% crop with the lens used at a high ISO, wide aperture and crap lighting. If you expected tack sharp images in these sorts of situations, your sorely mistaken.

When looking at the non cropped version though, with some careful processing, thats a totally usable image from a quality standpoint.

Shoot in some good light with an ISO under 800 and bump your aperture up to about the F4-5.6 range and watch that lens shine!

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Thanks for all your replies.

I was actually asking about the quality at the given settings, because that's where it hurts the most. Of course, shooting from 20ft at ISO 400 would look different, but I'm interesting in these extreme circumstances.

I haven't shot soccer in a long while, and shooting the coach who was pretty much static and not getting one shot that I could call sharp was really frustrating. But maybe I'm just expecting too much for such an aggressive crop.

I guess that's all the excuse I need to get a 300mm f2.8

 

[Derrel]

It looks about right for a 1.6x, tiny-pixel sensor like the 7D has. At 100% you can see how much noise has been suppressed in the smooth, background areas of the frame. By current (2010), top-level standards, that's not that great of a performance for only ISO 3,200...but by historical standards, it's pretty good. For a crop-body camera, it's pretty good. Everything is relative, but it looks to me like the lens is doing about as well as the sensor is at 3,200 under a tough artificial low-light situation. Your shutter speed is 1/1000 second, and his face is smack-dab in the very center of the lens's field of view where lens performance is at its highest.

 

[Overread20]

If you want to pull more out then yes you'll want to reach for a better lens and also camera body with noise performance. On the body front unless you want for a 5DM2 (which has far inferior AF than the 7D) which is also fullframe you're left with the 1.3crop 1DMIV.

On the lens front a 300mm f2.8 IS L would certainly give you more quality to play with and the new M2 versions even more on top of that. In the 70-200mm range you could pull more out of that area with either a straight 200mm prime or the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2

 

[JerrfyLube]

Hello all,

Please take a look at this picture and try to tell me if my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is less sharp than it should be.

If you want to pull more out then yes you'll want to reach for a better lens

HUH?? :raisedbrow:

 

[Overread20]

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with his lens, but that if he wants to get better results in those conditions he'll have to use "better" tools.

 

[JerrfyLube]

Hello all,

Please take a look at this picture and try to tell me if my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is less sharp than it should be.

If you want to pull more out then yes you'll want to reach for a better lens

HUH?? :raisedbrow:

As far as zooms go, the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is pretty much cream of the crop. Yes, a long, fast prime would have been better...but really, not much given the lighting conditions and camera settings.

 

[Overread20]

70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 is the cream of the crop at present for canon
But I'm still not disagreeing with you - just saying that under those conditions I agree with the OP that the only way to get a meaningful better result is to use better gear.

 

[MrLogic]

HUH?? :raisedbrow:

As far as zooms go, the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is pretty much cream of the crop.

Hell no. At 200mm and f/2.8 the 70-200 IS II is already sharper than the old one at f/8.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II - APS-C Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

"It's probably not necessary to comment on the charts below - the Canon lens is simply outstanding especially regarding the uniformity of the results throughout the range and across the image frame. Field curvature is basically non-existent"


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

"In the lab the lens showed a very good (f/2.8) to excellent performance at 70mm and 135mm However, at 200mm the resolution figures are not all that impressive for such a high-priced product. The figures are generally still very good here but frankly you can have a better performance out there. Regarding the fact that the lens has been calibrated it is viable to state that the lens is not any better than that. Regarding the quality figures at 200mm it does not seem to be advisable to use this lens with converters without hefty performance penalties."

 

[JerrfyLube]

I love how Canon releases a lens or body update to an already fantastic piece of gear and suddenly the previous version completely sucks...

Real world shooting will trump lab tests every time... I've done a bit of shooting with both the MKi(currently own) and MKii(rented a couple times) and I can firmly say that it wouldn't have helped much, if any, in this situation given the shooting conditions and body at hand.

 

[cfusionpm]

Your results seem about on par with what to expect out of that combo. I have the 2.8 IS II and get similar results under similar conditions. The mkI lens is going to be a bit softer wide open though, but this is just what you're going to get shooting at ISO 3200 with a crop camera. Granted it's about as good as you can get out of a 1.6 crop, it's still not going to be nearly as good as a 1.3x 1D or full frame 5D/1Ds.

Here's an example I shot with the mkII lens and a 100% crop:

Now, if you were printing this on the cover of a magazine, it's not going to be up to snuff. But I had the cropped image above printed as an 8x10 from mpix that came out quite nicely.