what is the issue here!!!!

[Ilovemycam]

hello guys... i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....
the nikon gear which i used to use was
NIKON D800
NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8 G
NIKKOR 70-200 F2.8 VR II


i changed it for something similar from canon
CANON 5D MARK III
CANON 24-70 F2.8 L V I
CANON 70-200 F2.8 L IS V I
CANON 85 F1.2 L


for some reason , i am getting very soft images as compared to the nikon counterpart. for example , @ 200mm f2.8 , the image is very soft compared to the nikon and @ 70 f2.8 , the image quality is not at all comparable to the NIKKOR.
is this because of the lens or the camera itself? are the VERSION I worse than the nikon ? or is it that the D800 has better sharpness then Mark III Raw files?
i could invest in the V 2 versions but from what i saw today at a local store, the 24-70 V2 was still very very soft @ 70mm f2.8 ... it could be a bad copy of the lens i am not sure...

What was wrong with your Nikon D800?????

Many photogs would be thrilled to death if they had one of those...me incuded!

 

[enerlevel]

hello guys... i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....
the nikon gear which i used to use was
NIKON D800
NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8 G
NIKKOR 70-200 F2.8 VR II


i changed it for something similar from canon
CANON 5D MARK III
CANON 24-70 F2.8 L V I
CANON 70-200 F2.8 L IS V I
CANON 85 F1.2 L


for some reason , i am getting very soft images as compared to the nikon counterpart. for example , @ 200mm f2.8 , the image is very soft compared to the nikon and @ 70 f2.8 , the image quality is not at all comparable to the NIKKOR.
is this because of the lens or the camera itself? are the VERSION I worse than the nikon ? or is it that the D800 has better sharpness then Mark III Raw files?
i could invest in the V 2 versions but from what i saw today at a local store, the 24-70 V2 was still very very soft @ 70mm f2.8 ... it could be a bad copy of the lens i am not sure...

What was wrong with your Nikon D800?????

Many photogs would be thrilled to death if they had one of those...me incuded!

yes i changed the nikon d800 because of the slow fps and large file transfer.
anyway, the problem was the lens. i just checked the 70-200 is II version and it is surely much sharper then the Version I. thanks guys.

 

[gsgary]

hello guys... i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....
the nikon gear which i used to use was
NIKON D800
NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8 G
NIKKOR 70-200 F2.8 VR II


i changed it for something similar from canon
CANON 5D MARK III
CANON 24-70 F2.8 L V I
CANON 70-200 F2.8 L IS V I
CANON 85 F1.2 L


for some reason , i am getting very soft images as compared to the nikon counterpart. for example , @ 200mm f2.8 , the image is very soft compared to the nikon and @ 70 f2.8 , the image quality is not at all comparable to the NIKKOR.
is this because of the lens or the camera itself? are the VERSION I worse than the nikon ? or is it that the D800 has better sharpness then Mark III Raw files?
i could invest in the V 2 versions but from what i saw today at a local store, the 24-70 V2 was still very very soft @ 70mm f2.8 ... it could be a bad copy of the lens i am not sure...

What was wrong with your Nikon D800?????

Many photogs would be thrilled to death if they had one of those...me incuded!

yes i changed the nikon d800 because of the slow fps and large file transfer.
anyway, the problem was the lens. i just checked the 70-200 is II version and it is surely much sharper then the Version I. thanks guys.

Rubbish there is not that much difference between MK1 and 2, post a photo so we can see all the settings i bet the shutter speed was too slow

 

[dorian7]

I was experiencing a similar problem which I learned that it was actually too slow of a shutter speed for the focal length/my hands. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon/304245-calibrating-focus-5d-mark-iii-2.html

 

[fjrabon]

well, it depends on the OP's definition of too soft. I'd be hesitant to call the MKI 'too soft', even at f/2.8. But you can certainly see a difference between the two lenses at f/2.8, especially around the edges. And yes, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens is a decent amount better than its Canon L counterpart. Again, experienced photographers can both navigate around this difference, but they can also see the difference between the two, especially at f/2.8.

So, while it is possible the OP is an idiot and has no idea what he/she is doing, it's also possible that the OP does know what they are doing and is just REALLY, EXTREMELY picky about the difference between the various lenses they are referring to.

And gsgary, I can absolutely see the difference between the MKI and MKII at 200mm f/2.8. It's not HUGE by any means, but it's certainly noticeable. It's sort of like if you've gotten used to a retina resolution iPhone, and then pick up an older 3GS model. Sure, the 3GS was an awesome screen for a long time, but you can easily see the difference between the two after you've gotten used to the retina.

 

[gsgary]

well, it depends on the OP's definition of too soft. I'd be hesitant to call the MKI 'too soft', even at f/2.8. But you can certainly see a difference between the two lenses at f/2.8, especially around the edges. And yes, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens is a decent amount better than its Canon L counterpart. Again, experienced photographers can both navigate around this difference, but they can also see the difference between the two, especially at f/2.8.

So, while it is possible the OP is an idiot and has no idea what he/she is doing, it's also possible that the OP does know what they are doing and is just REALLY, EXTREMELY picky about the difference between the various lenses they are referring to.

And gsgary, I can absolutely see the difference between the MKI and MKII at 200mm f/2.8. It's not HUGE by any means, but it's certainly noticeable. It's sort of like if you've gotten used to a retina resolution iPhone, and then pick up an older 3GS model. Sure, the 3GS was an awesome screen for a long time, but you can easily see the difference between the two after you've gotten used to the retina.

Ive got my eye out for a Canon 50F0.95

 

[enerlevel]

What was wrong with your Nikon D800?????

Many photogs would be thrilled to death if they had one of those...me incuded!

yes i changed the nikon d800 because of the slow fps and large file transfer.
anyway, the problem was the lens. i just checked the 70-200 is II version and it is surely much sharper then the Version I. thanks guys.

Rubbish there is not that much difference between MK1 and 2, post a photo so we can see all the settings i bet the shutter speed was too slow

there is a lot of difference between the MK1 and the 2. u might wanna do some testings before claiming such comments. infact the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is said to be the weakest performer amongst the 70-200 gang.
the post was to know the problem not to prove anyone anything. and my problem seems to be solved with the new lens.

 

[enerlevel]

well, it depends on the OP's definition of too soft. I'd be hesitant to call the MKI 'too soft', even at f/2.8. But you can certainly see a difference between the two lenses at f/2.8, especially around the edges. And yes, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens is a decent amount better than its Canon L counterpart. Again, experienced photographers can both navigate around this difference, but they can also see the difference between the two, especially at f/2.8.

So, while it is possible the OP is an idiot and has no idea what he/she is doing, it's also possible that the OP does know what they are doing and is just REALLY, EXTREMELY picky about the difference between the various lenses they are referring to.

And gsgary, I can absolutely see the difference between the MKI and MKII at 200mm f/2.8. It's not HUGE by any means, but it's certainly noticeable. It's sort of like if you've gotten used to a retina resolution iPhone, and then pick up an older 3GS model. Sure, the 3GS was an awesome screen for a long time, but you can easily see the difference between the two after you've gotten used to the retina.

that is exactly my point. yes the MK1 is a sharp lens but when to compare it to the D800 + 70-200 F2.8 VR II lens, the images are below par. i am not talking about experience photographers or skills. i am just talking about the sharpness in general when i pixel peep. i am paying so much money for the equipment, then off course i want the best!! i have played with a lot of gears lately and i know exactly how the D800/24-70/70-200 combo worked for Nikon. i know what they are able to produce and i wanted similar results if not better with my canon gear.

i dont think the canon 24-70 and the 70-200 MKI is better then the nikon counterparts.. but yes i do think the 70-200 F2.8 IS II is on par or maybe a little better then the nikkor

 

[gsgary]

there is a lot of difference between the MK1 and the 2. u might wanna do some testings before claiming such comments. infact the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is said to be the weakest performer amongst the 70-200 gang.
the post was to know the problem not to prove anyone anything. and my problem seems to be solved with the new lens.

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

 

[enerlevel]

there is a lot of difference between the MK1 and the 2. u might wanna do some testings before claiming such comments. infact the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is said to be the weakest performer amongst the 70-200 gang.
the post was to know the problem not to prove anyone anything. and my problem seems to be solved with the new lens.

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

i can see the difference and if you see both at 200 f2.8, even u will be able to see it.

 

[fjrabon]

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

Maybe not over the Internet, depending on the shot conditions, with all the dithering intenet jpeg uploads usually do. but looking at a high quality print or the full res photo on a 27" quality screen, you absolutely can. I deal with these two lenses every single day. There's a reason why I always get to work early on busy days, when we are putting our gear together I don't want to be stuck with the MkI when we have MkII's. basically I have to sharpen my images with the MkI a fairly decent amount. This is a bit problematic when I'm already often shooting athletic events at night and thus am wide open and high ISO. With the MkII, as long as it was in focus I NEVER have to sharpen. Heck, there are times when straight out of the camera it almost is on the verge of looking oversharpened

Sure the MkI is a great lens. Sure for most everything you'd ever need it for its much more than sufficient. But pretending like there is no noticeable difference between it and the MkII is just silly when people who actually have used these two regularly day in - day out read your statements.

Have you owned or used both of these on a regular basis? I'm all for improving photographic skills before worrying about equipment. I made do with a D3100 for a loooooong time and just moved to a D7000 which isn't a world beater either. But on the other hand acting like there's no real difference between gear at all, and that almost nobody can discern whatever difference there is, is just equally as misleading. Even the sales reps at our company, who know next to nothing about photography can see the difference between the MkI and MkII. One is just a lens that does a job. The other is probably the best all around lens I've ever used.

 

[gsgary]

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

Maybe not over the Internet, depending on the shot conditions, with all the dithering intenet jpeg uploads usually do. but looking at a high quality print or the full res photo on a 27" quality screen, you absolutely can. I deal with these two lenses every single day. There's a reason why I always get to work early on busy days, when we are putting our gear together I don't want to be stuck with the MkI when we have MkII's. basically I have to sharpen my images with the MkI a fairly decent amount. This is a bit problematic when I'm already often shooting athletic events at night and thus am wide open and high ISO. With the MkII, as long as it was in focus I NEVER have to sharpen. Heck, there are times when straight out of the camera it almost is on the verge of looking oversharpened

Sure the MkI is a great lens. Sure for most everything you'd ever need it for its much more than sufficient. But pretending like there is no noticeable difference between it and the MkII is just silly when people who actually have used these two regularly day in - day out read your statements.

Have you owned or used both of these on a regular basis? I'm all for improving photographic skills before worrying about equipment. I made do with a D3100 for a loooooong time and just moved to a D7000 which isn't a world beater either. But on the other hand acting like there's no real difference between gear at all, and that almost nobody can discern whatever difference there is, is just equally as misleading. Even the sales reps at our company, who know next to nothing about photography can see the difference between the MkI and MkII. One is just a lens that does a job. The other is probably the best all around lens I've ever used.

Are you talking about the Canon 70-200 or Nikon

 

[fjrabon]

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

Maybe not over the Internet, depending on the shot conditions, with all the dithering intenet jpeg uploads usually do. but looking at a high quality print or the full res photo on a 27" quality screen, you absolutely can. I deal with these two lenses every single day. There's a reason why I always get to work early on busy days, when we are putting our gear together I don't want to be stuck with the MkI when we have MkII's. basically I have to sharpen my images with the MkI a fairly decent amount. This is a bit problematic when I'm already often shooting athletic events at night and thus am wide open and high ISO. With the MkII, as long as it was in focus I NEVER have to sharpen. Heck, there are times when straight out of the camera it almost is on the verge of looking oversharpened

Sure the MkI is a great lens. Sure for most everything you'd ever need it for its much more than sufficient. But pretending like there is no noticeable difference between it and the MkII is just silly when people who actually have used these two regularly day in - day out read your statements.

Have you owned or used both of these on a regular basis? I'm all for improving photographic skills before worrying about equipment. I made do with a D3100 for a loooooong time and just moved to a D7000 which isn't a world beater either. But on the other hand acting like there's no real difference between gear at all, and that almost nobody can discern whatever difference there is, is just equally as misleading. Even the sales reps at our company, who know next to nothing about photography can see the difference between the MkI and MkII. One is just a lens that does a job. The other is probably the best all around lens I've ever used.

Are you talking about the Canon 70-200 or Nikon

The Canon. It's what I shot with for work at the studio I work for. My personal gear is Nikon.

 

[gsgary]

there is a lot of difference between the MK1 and the 2. u might wanna do some testings before claiming such comments. infact the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is said to be the weakest performer amongst the 70-200 gang.
the post was to know the problem not to prove anyone anything. and my problem seems to be solved with the new lens.

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

i can see the difference and if you see both at 200 f2.8, even u will be able to see it.

A lot also depends on who is using it

 

[fjrabon]

It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which

i can see the difference and if you see both at 200 f2.8, even u will be able to see it.

A lot also depends on who is using it

Sure, but same could be said for an iPhone v. a D800. I could probably take a better picture with my iPhone than my mom could take with a D800. That doesn't mean that the iPhone is just as good of a camera.