December 13, 2017, 06:26:06 AM

Author Topic: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?  (Read 26710 times)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2012, 11:02:50 PM »
Quote
I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department.  Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF.  With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.

that's about my experience...I used the same combo for a few skating shows, perhaps about a 70-80% keeper rate at the last show I went to. However, even out of the "keepers", many were not sharp, but remained usable after some PP sharpening in-house. I like to shoot in RAW so I don't fire bursts, but instead try to predict when the skater(s) do moves and time the shot right.

I have to say, though, that exceeded my expectations of the 60D AF. I still missed a few shots, but once I improved my technique a bit (faster shutter speeds, better/longer tracking) I was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. Still, a better AF system would really be nice...I guess I have one now in the 5D, with the caveat of loss of reach...

______________

Regarding the OP's shots, definitely need a faster shutter speed...but even then, it should not be THAT blurry. For sports one really has to use Servo mode, hold the camera firm and track the subject(s) one is interested in shooting. I've learned through experience that typically you can't just pick up the camera, point and shoot and hope for a sharp shot...

I don't really have a subject that I'm tracking in the game... which is also where the problem comes in.  It's not like my kid is the one intercepting the ball.  So I start by setting the lens at 115 or so focal length, locking in on the QB, and the watching the action develop.  When the QB throws, I'm tracking the ball through the air (not that effectively) so the center AF point then locks into infinity or at least the other fans, and then hopefully I get to the receiver before the ball does allowing the AF to lock in on my receiver.  It would be nice if I had just one target that I would follow, but that also would be less interesting. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2012, 11:02:50 PM »

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2012, 11:04:30 PM »

The first two shots are Lightroom adjusted images adjusted from raw for the cloudy day with the 1/400 to 1/500th day.  The 2nd set are untouched jpegs from the sunny day with the cpl and up to 1/8000 of a second.  I was shooting in raw and I adjusted some of those, but not to the point where I was pleased with the result. 

So my query for yall is, is it me or is it my lens?

Seeing the 2nd Set would be helpful.

The images shared, as many have said already, are a result of the shutter speed is too slow. The rule of thumb you used is to reduce camera shake hand holding a lens, it has nothing to do with moving objects and the speed needed to freeze action. Sports require 1/1000 at a minimum, faster at times depending on what action it is you are trying to stop.

Post up the other examples.

Done.  I really should have done this earlier, but I wanted to watch the Cowboys... and that did not turn out to be the best use of my time. :(

Here are two more.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 11:06:33 PM by jdramirez »
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2012, 11:10:23 PM »
Here are some I took with the 100mm L.

Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2012, 11:12:24 PM »
And here's one more with the 100mm L.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 11:18:57 PM by jdramirez »
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4755
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2012, 12:48:28 AM »
Quote
I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department.  Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF.  With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.

that's about my experience...I used the same combo for a few skating shows, perhaps about a 70-80% keeper rate at the last show I went to. However, even out of the "keepers", many were not sharp, but remained usable after some PP sharpening in-house. I like to shoot in RAW so I don't fire bursts, but instead try to predict when the skater(s) do moves and time the shot right.

I have to say, though, that exceeded my expectations of the 60D AF. I still missed a few shots, but once I improved my technique a bit (faster shutter speeds, better/longer tracking) I was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. Still, a better AF system would really be nice...I guess I have one now in the 5D, with the caveat of loss of reach...

______________

Regarding the OP's shots, definitely need a faster shutter speed...but even then, it should not be THAT blurry. For sports one really has to use Servo mode, hold the camera firm and track the subject(s) one is interested in shooting. I've learned through experience that typically you can't just pick up the camera, point and shoot and hope for a sharp shot...

I don't really have a subject that I'm tracking in the game... which is also where the problem comes in.  It's not like my kid is the one intercepting the ball.  So I start by setting the lens at 115 or so focal length, locking in on the QB, and the watching the action develop.  When the QB throws, I'm tracking the ball through the air (not that effectively) so the center AF point then locks into infinity or at least the other fans, and then hopefully I get to the receiver before the ball does allowing the AF to lock in on my receiver.  It would be nice if I had just one target that I would follow, but that also would be less interesting.

It is better to keep at 200mm as much as you can and you might try focusing on the receiver, certainly once the ball is released start focusing on who it is heading toward, rather than trying to track the flying ball. At that level it's 99% sure the QB would even look to who he will throw it to and give it away way ahead of time. You can use one eye outside of the VF to keep a wider view of what is going on.

Make sure to use center point only on that camera. That camera will have a lot of misses even with perfect technique on your part.

At f/2.8 MFA can make a huge difference, Canon sadly cut it from the 60D. Not sure that is the problem but maybe it needs to be sent in for calibration.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4755
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2012, 12:49:42 AM »
And here's one more with the 100mm L.

that second shot is cool! +100  :D

Act444

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 776
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2012, 02:18:41 AM »
you know, with all this talk about the 60D lacking AFMA, I haven't found I really NEEDED it or wished I had it. Well, maybe with one exception- my first 40mm 2.8 I had to send back because it was backfocusing and I needed to find one that focused properly on my camera. Then again, it was a pretty severe backfocus so even AFMA may not have been able to save that one...then there was a time my 17-55 appeared to have a slight backfocus at 55mm in certain shots...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2012, 02:18:41 AM »

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2012, 12:42:03 PM »
And here's one more with the 100mm L.

that second shot is cool! +100  :D

Thanks.  As i usually say,a broken clock is right twice a day.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6316
  • Canon Pride.
    • Der Tierfotograf
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2012, 12:45:54 PM »
...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.

... with *Canon* lenses that is, I guess? I can report the same from my 60d, but also all Canon. My theory is that Canon not only removed afma from the 60d to make the 7d look better, but to stall 3rd party lens sales - non-Canon lenses seem to be much more in need of af adjustment.

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2012, 01:22:30 PM »
...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.

... with *Canon* lenses that is, I guess? I can report the same from my 60d, but also all Canon. My theory is that Canon not only removed afma from the 60d to make the 7d look better, but to stall 3rd party lens sales - non-Canon lenses seem to be much more in need of af adjustment.

Ditto with your sentiment.  Whether it was a 50 mm f 1.8 or 1.4, or the 55-250, or the 24-105, or the 100mm, the 70-300, or the aforementioned 70-200 f4l. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

risc32

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 577
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2012, 02:16:55 PM »
I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said as to your possible cures, but i rather like the first shot you got. to me it's not lost at all. it's fantastic. I have the 70-200 2.8, and i find it to be a fabulous lens. i'm sure it's not the match of my 300 2.8 on my 5dmk3, but on my 5d i can't tell any difference. It's not a myth, it's a legend.   i should copyright that. 8)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4755
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2012, 02:46:56 PM »
...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.

... with *Canon* lenses that is, I guess? I can report the same from my 60d, but also all Canon. My theory is that Canon not only removed afma from the 60d to make the 7d look better, but to stall 3rd party lens sales - non-Canon lenses seem to be much more in need of af adjustment.

I don't buy that third party lens thing. I have seen ZERO difference in MFA need for third party vs Canon lenses, granted my sample sizes are hardly huge in the grand scheme of things.

So, more importantly, someone managed to catch some Canon exec at a show saying that they took it out to promote the 7D and to make putting it back into some potential 70D give the 70D an extra, exciting, 'new' selling point. So blame it on the out of control Canon marketing guys IMO.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21830
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2012, 02:51:20 PM »
...someone managed to catch some Canon exec at a show saying that they took it out to promote the 7D and to make putting it back into some potential 70D give the 70D an extra, exciting, 'new' selling point. So blame it on the out of control Canon marketing guys IMO.

Nice to hear that's 'confirmed' so to speak.  It's always been obvious to me that's exactly why the 60D doesn't have AFMA.  Since the the firmware code is there already, someone had to actively make the decision to omit it, and that someone was clearly in Marketing.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2012, 02:51:20 PM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6316
  • Canon Pride.
    • Der Tierfotograf
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2012, 04:09:41 PM »
...someone managed to catch some Canon exec at a show saying that they took it out to promote the 7D and to make putting it back into some potential 70D give the 70D an extra, exciting, 'new' selling point. So blame it on the out of control Canon marketing guys IMO.
Nice to hear that's 'confirmed' so to speak.  It's always been obvious to me that's exactly why the 60D doesn't have AFMA.  Since the the firmware code is there already, someone had to actively make the decision to omit it, and that someone was clearly in Marketing.

Ugh, if the reason really is intra-Canon model marketing that's pretty a pretty cheap move! Generally I like to speculate what greedy schemes the Canon marketing guys are up to, but even I feel bad when I hear it really confirmed :-( ... it is my (current) brand after all and I've been using Canon since ~1990.

gjones5252

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2012, 06:14:00 PM »
I have to agree. After seeing this post i organized my Lightroom by lens and scanned through the pictures and the really impressive keepers that pop weren't as common as i would expect.. I have been less than impressed with my non is 2.8 on both a 60d and 5dII. I am mostly taking portraits and so for me its not a shutter speed issue. I rented the IS II for a wedding before i bought this and using IS or not the picture were much sharper and overall better looking which equaled to a higher keeper rate. With my version eyes are frequently out of focus and the bokeh just isn't where i would expect for a 2.8. Trying to sell mine in order to upgrade but hoping it doesn't prove to be user error.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2012, 06:14:00 PM »