Is there something wrong with my Canon 70-200?

[MrLogic]

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

Your words, not mine. Of course it doesn't "suck." I wouldn't call it soft, either. The new one is just much sharper at the tele end. As is the 70-200 f/4 IS.

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.

I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.

 

[cfusionpm]

I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.

I wouldn't exactly say that. It can't hold a candle to a full frame or 1.3, but I would hardly call it's ISO performance "not that great." Especially considering it out-performs (or at worst, is equal to) other crop sensors that have lower pixel density and larger sensor sizes. It's at the top of its class, even if that entire class sits well below the full frames.

</shameless defense>

 

[Derrel]

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:

The 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS-USM model that the OP has is NOT that good of a performer at the longer focal lengths...it's simply NOT that good at resolving power on APS-C sensors...the lens is good, but not nearly good **enough** for an 18MP sensor...that's why Canon has a brand new Mark II version of the lens...the original design dates back to probably 1997, original production somewhere around 1998, if my memory serves me correctly.

Take a look here: even on an 8 MP sensor, this lens at f/2.8 is wayyyyyy down there in resolving figures at the longer end....it is easily bettered by many prime lenses, or newer zoom designs...look at the 200mm line pairs figures at f/2.8....extremely weak...and that is from a Canon-calibrated lens...after the first lens was so poor they got another lens and re-tested, and then sent the lens to Canon for calibration, and re-tested...

 

[Derrel]

I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.

I wouldn't exactly say that. It can't hold a candle to a full frame or 1.3, but I would hardly call it's ISO performance "not that great." Especially considering it out-performs (or at worst, is equal to) other crop sensors that have lower pixel density and larger sensor sizes. It's at the top of its class, even if that entire class sits well below the full frames.

</shameless defense>

Uh, SORRY, but no, it's not at the top of its class...and just as an aside, the new Pentax K 5 has the TOP crop-frame sensor...the 7D is not as good as the upcoming Nikon D7000, and the new Pentax, well it is the current champion of sensor performance.

I hate to burst your bubble with facts Matt...but

The Online Photographer: The New Number One

DxOMark - Pentax K-5

 

[Derrel]

Is the cartoon-like yellow posterized color on the jersey's numbers the way the image actually looks? Is that the way the camera is actually rendering the numbers? Or is that some type of byproduct of clipping? Or re-sizing on the screen capture?

 

[JerrfyLube]

Oh god...put on your rain coats. The gear whores found the thread...

Its ALL downhill from here...

 

[Derrel]

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.

Cream of the crop? Or cream of the crap??? As overread pointed out so diplomatically, a "better tool" to use his words, like a NEW, modern 70-200 Mark II, would be a better performing lens.

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

Pretty weak performance at 200mm. Even the Canon fanboys doing the test were surprised at how poorly the lens did when tested rigorously...

 

[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.

Cream of the crop? Or cream of the crap???

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

Pretty weak performance at 200mm. Even the Canon fanboys doing the test were surprised at how poorly the lens did when tested rigorously...

:lmao:

You seriously need to stop believing everything you read on the internet...

 

[Overread20]

Oh god...put on your rain coats. The gear whores found the thread...

Its ALL downhill from here...

There's nothing wrong with the fact that a better overall tool is going to yield a superior result at a purely technical level. The same is true of almost any area of craft/creation - better tools can give better performance and/or allow an easier overall working environment for the user.


Furthermore we have to remember that its not just a technical level that we work in - we also have content and what has been created to consider. Thus even with "lesser" tools great works can be created. Furthermore just because there is a new "pro" tool does not mean that the former "pro" tool is no longer fit for the job at hand. It might be a as good as the newer, but chances are (in most cases) it can still do a very good job - esp in an area like photography where often the creativity and content of the capture is put on a higher level of important to the technical attributes.

 

[Derrel]

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.

Yeah...the new lens is significantly better than the old one. Over the past decade, anon has figured out how to make better optics. Nikon's new 70-200 VR-II model, like the Canon Mark II model, is also MUCH better than the lens it replaces.

I happen to own a Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM, just like the OP does...it's nowhere near as sharp as say the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR...and the 70-200 is at its sharpest at the bottom end of its zoom range. I thought everybody knew that...

 

[ironsidephoto]

I dont think the lens is what's causing it to be soft, but more so the camera. What level of in-camera high ISO noise reduction settings do you have set? The camera might be softening it via noise reduction before it even gets to your computer.

 

[cfusionpm]

I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.

I wouldn't exactly say that. It can't hold a candle to a full frame or 1.3, but I would hardly call it's ISO performance "not that great." Especially considering it out-performs (or at worst, is equal to) other crop sensors that have lower pixel density and larger sensor sizes. It's at the top of its class, even if that entire class sits well below the full frames.

</shameless defense>

Uh, SORRY, but no, it's not at the top of its class...and just as an aside, the new Pentax K 5 has the TOP crop-frame sensor...the 7D is not as good as the upcoming Nikon D7000, and the new Pentax, well it is the current champion of sensor performance.

I hate to burst your bubble with facts Matt...but

The Online Photographer: The New Number One

DxOMark - Pentax K-5

I think someone missed the point of that comment more than Michael Bay missed the point of Pearl Harbor.

 

[JerrfyLube]

I think someone missed the point of that comment more than Michael Bay missed the point of Pearl Harbor.

Uhh yup... :lmao:

 

[MrLogic]

I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.

I wouldn't exactly say that. It can't hold a candle to a full frame or 1.3, but I would hardly call it's ISO performance "not that great." Especially considering it out-performs (or at worst, is equal to) other crop sensors that have lower pixel density and larger sensor sizes. It's at the top of its class, even if that entire class sits well below the full frames.

You probably meant to say that it has better high ISO performance than its direct competitor, the Nikon D300s, correct? Why, yes, the 7D is somewhat better in that regard.

But it certainly *looks like* the latest generation of Sony-made (16MP) APS-C sensors will vastly outperform it.

 

[memento]

I happen to own a Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM, just like the OP does...it's nowhere near as sharp as say the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR...i thought everybody knew that..

so now we're comparing Canon to Nikon and primes to zooms? i thought everybody knew that primes are sharper than zooms???



OP - you have found the limits of your CAMERA.
now you see why pro's have $6,000 bodies...