A little history to begin with. I have a 60D and previously owned a 70-200mm f/4L USM and it was ok. It didn't seem like a significant jump in image quality from my 55-250mm IS. Yes, I have faster shutter speeds, lower iso, and better bokeh (not to mention the size of the 70-200 drives the ladies wild... I assume... only guys ever comment about the size of the lens).
I decided to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8 and I'm still not wowed. Not the way I am when I use my 100mm f/2.8L macro USM. I was considering getting a 200mm f2.8L prime, but thought the 70-200 would be more usable for a variety of situations. I've also considered getting a 135mm f/2, but that seems too redundant to have with my 100mm L macro.
So the other day I was shooting at 1/400th of a second because it was a really cloudy day and I was losing shots left and right (though in retrospect I should have taken off the CPL filter earlier and I should have bumped the iso up from 100 to 1200). So I take full blame for that, but the images I lost really irked me. I assumed incorrectly that 1/focal length would be sufficient (200x1.6=320 = shutter speed >1/320. Nope).
Then yesterday it was a cold sunny day, so I took some shots without the CPL and some shots with. I normally shoot in aperture priority, but today I decided to go freestyle and shoot in manual. Iso was between 320 and 640. And my shutter speeds were 1/2000 and 1/8000 of a second. And I'm still not happy with the result. I've heard that the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135, and I have quite a few of the shots within that range, and I'm not blown away.
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?
I decided to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8 and I'm still not wowed. Not the way I am when I use my 100mm f/2.8L macro USM. I was considering getting a 200mm f2.8L prime, but thought the 70-200 would be more usable for a variety of situations. I've also considered getting a 135mm f/2, but that seems too redundant to have with my 100mm L macro.
So the other day I was shooting at 1/400th of a second because it was a really cloudy day and I was losing shots left and right (though in retrospect I should have taken off the CPL filter earlier and I should have bumped the iso up from 100 to 1200). So I take full blame for that, but the images I lost really irked me. I assumed incorrectly that 1/focal length would be sufficient (200x1.6=320 = shutter speed >1/320. Nope).
Then yesterday it was a cold sunny day, so I took some shots without the CPL and some shots with. I normally shoot in aperture priority, but today I decided to go freestyle and shoot in manual. Iso was between 320 and 640. And my shutter speeds were 1/2000 and 1/8000 of a second. And I'm still not happy with the result. I've heard that the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135, and I have quite a few of the shots within that range, and I'm not blown away.
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?