Is the 50mm 1.8 STM sharper than a 70-200 2.8 II at similar apertures?

[Mancubus]

My 50mm 1.8 impresses me every time with incredible sharpness when shooting at f/2.8. However, the 70-200 IS II often disappoints at the same aperture, even at f/4 I can notice that the 50mm is quite sharper when doing close up portraits.

I prefer the colors and the bokeh of the 70-200mm, but can't get that tack sharp effect I'm used to with the 50mm. To be honest, it's only noticeable when zooming 1:1 in a decent monitor, so for 99% of the cases it will be the same thing, but it bugs me since this lens cost me over 15 times more than the 50mm.

Is the 50mm really sharper, or am I doing something wrong when using the 70-200?

 

[rs]

The 70-200 at 2.8 certainly shouldn't be any less sharp than the 50 STM at 2.8 - that is at any zoom setting, in the centre of the frame. Towards the corners, the 70-200 should be sharper.

I don't have a 50 STM to compare to, but this is a useful tool:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I would guess you've got an AFMA issue that needs correcting with the 70-200 for it to appear worse.

 

[meywd]

This isn't a scientific test, and I don't have the stm, but I do have the 50mm f/1.8 II, I tried to match the composition, all below are 1:1 center crops, enlarge for full size.

 

[meywd]

This isn't a scientific test, and I don't have the stm, but I do have the 50mm f/1.8 II, I tried to match the composition, all below are 1:1 center crops, enlarge for full size.

 

[meywd]

This isn't a scientific test, and I don't have the stm, but I do have the 50mm f/1.8 II, I tried to match the composition, all below are 1:1 center crops, enlarge for full size.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Hey, if you think that's bad just think about the poor 800mm f/5.6 owners:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=459&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
:'(

 

[meywd]

Hey, if you think that's bad just think about the poor 800mm f/5.6 owners:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=459&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
:'(

lol

 

[Mancubus]

I will try to prepare some comparison the same way meywd did.

The way it feels now for me is that the 70-200mm is sharp enough for almost anything, but the 50mm stm is even sharper.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Center sharpness is just one part of the story. The 50mm lens is certainly excellent for the price. However, since they do not have a common focal length, there is no point to compare.

 

[meywd]

Center sharpness is just one part of the story. The 50mm lens is certainly excellent for the price. However, since they do not have a common focal length, there is no point to compare.

I agree, and again this is only with the 50mm f/1.8 II, when I get a soft image, I am not surprised when I know that I took it with the 50mm, but when I find out that it's taken with 70-200mm I know that for sure something was off, focus, dof, high ISO, hand shake, or a fast object/low shutter, because when it's nailed it's is really sharper than the 50, but then again, I rarely use the 50 above f/2.8

 

[Mancubus]

Ok, I performed a test similar to meywd's (using a circuit board instead), with tripod, mirror lockup, lots of lighting and manual focusing. The sharpness of the lenses is pretty close, both performed very well.

So, what I did is: went back to lightroom and analyzed some photos from a recent farm trip. I've noticed that in some shots, with IS on, my 70-200mm is a bit blurry. Looks like motion blur, but with a fairly steady subject and shooting at 1/800s.

Here is an example, the subject was moving very slowly, the head is in focus but still not quite sharp and seems affected by motion blur (but I was shooting at 1/800):

Closer crop:

 

[Policar]

Center sharpness is just one part of the story. The 50mm lens is certainly excellent for the price. However, since they do not have a common focal length, there is no point to compare.

This correlates more closely with my experience (with the 50mm f1.8 II, not STM) than the comparison pics do. That might have been a bad copy or those photos were taken at a bad distance for the 50mm. I don't find the 70-200mm that sharp until stopped down a bit, not like the 18-35mm Sigma, even for HD video. But it's got great IS and a nice look.

I can't think of anything better for the purpose it serves, which is ultimately what matters. The focal lengths aren't shared so the comparison is kind of pointless. If it's not sharp enough for the print size you're after and you need that focal length range, you can find sharper primes but I couldn't care less because they lack IS and the convenience of a zoom. Okay, I'd trade for the 200mm f2.

_

 

[meywd]

Ok, I performed a test similar to meywd's (using a circuit board instead), with tripod, mirror lockup, lots of lighting and manual focusing. The sharpness of the lenses is pretty close, both performed very well.

So, what I did is: went back to lightroom and analyzed some photos from a recent farm trip. I've noticed that in some shots, with IS on, my 70-200mm is a bit blurry. Looks like motion blur, but with a fairly steady subject and shooting at 1/800s.

Here is an example, the subject was moving very slowly, the head is in focus but still not quite sharp and seems affected by motion blur (but I was shooting at 1/800):

Closer crop:

It happens to me, and I guess its handshake, or maybe IS working in mid shot.

 

[Mancubus]

Today I took the 70-200mm out for some portrait shots, and I've decided to do it a bit differently this time: I decided to NOT use the AF-on button to focus, and focused using the shutter button as most people do.

This gave me a LOT more sharp shots, a few misfocused but none had that apparent minor motion blur despite using relatively low shutter speeds (1/200 or 1/100s).

I think that when I use the AF-on button to focus (which apparently doesn't trigger the lens IS), there is not enough time for the IS to settle because I wasn't holding the shutter halfway before the shot. And since I didn't use the halfway shutter to focus I would just take the photo at once and this wouldn't give time for the IS to stop the moving parts.

But today, when focusing through the shutter button, it gave enough time for the IS to settle and avoid those slightly blurry shots I was having before.

Does my theory make sense?

 

[meywd]

Today I took the 70-200mm out for some portrait shots, and I've decided to do it a bit differently this time: I decided to NOT use the AF-on button to focus, and focused using the shutter button as most people do.

This gave me a LOT more sharp shots, a few misfocused but none had that apparent minor motion blur despite using relatively low shutter speeds (1/200 or 1/100s).

I think that when I use the AF-on button to focus (which apparently doesn't trigger the lens IS), there is not enough time for the IS to settle because I wasn't holding the shutter halfway before the shot. And since I didn't use the halfway shutter to focus I would just take the photo at once and this wouldn't give time for the IS to stop the moving parts.

But today, when focusing through the shutter button, it gave enough time for the IS to settle and avoid those slightly blurry shots I was having before.

Does my theory make sense?

I can't say if your theory is correct or not, but there is another probability, maybe without the AF-on button your grip is tighter and your hand is more stable.

 

[Mancubus]

After almost a year from the opening this thread, here is the outcome:

Since my 5d3 was almost at the end of the warranty and had some minor spots on the sensor, I sent it in for a free cleaning before the warranty expires. Since I was sending the body in, I also sent the 50 STM and the 70-200 mentioned on this thread.

Took them 35 (!) days to service my gear, and when it got back here are the technician's reports:
- 5d3 was working fine, sensor cleaned
- 50mm STM was perfect, nothing done
- 70-200mm calibrated for both front and back focus

After I got it back, shot with the 70-200 for a week and WOW, it's much better now. Much more accurate and doesn't miss focus like before.

I'm happy that I finally got it working properly, it wasn't bad before but I was a bit disappointed for spending so much money and still missing shots. Was blaming myself, changing shooting techniques, trying all types of AF adjustments and nothing helped.

It sucks that such a high end product comes out of the box in need of adjustments that will leave you without your gear for over a month!

 

[j-nord]

Thanks for the update and glad the 70-200ii is fixed! Do you find the center sharpness similar now @2.8, 4, 5.6?

 

[Mancubus]

Thanks for the update and glad the 70-200ii is fixed! Do you find the center sharpness similar now @2.8, 4, 5.6?

I would have to do some tests to verify that, but with the photos from last week I can say the details @2.8 are as good as my camera can produce.

 

[AlanF]

After almost a year from the opening this thread, here is the outcome:

Since my 5d3 was almost at the end of the warranty and had some minor spots on the sensor, I sent it in for a free cleaning before the warranty expires. Since I was sending the body in, I also sent the 50 STM and the 70-200 mentioned on this thread.

Took them 35 (!) days to service my gear, and when it got back here are the technician's reports:
- 5d3 was working fine, sensor cleaned
- 50mm STM was perfect, nothing done
- 70-200mm calibrated for both front and back focus

After I got it back, shot with the 70-200 for a week and WOW, it's much better now. Much more accurate and doesn't miss focus like before.

I'm happy that I finally got it working properly, it wasn't bad before but I was a bit disappointed for spending so much money and still missing shots. Was blaming myself, changing shooting techniques, trying all types of AF adjustments and nothing helped.

It sucks that such a high end product comes out of the box in need of adjustments that will leave you without your gear for over a month!

Presumably, you had never AFMAed your 70-200mm?

 

[Mancubus]

After almost a year from the opening this thread, here is the outcome:

Since my 5d3 was almost at the end of the warranty and had some minor spots on the sensor, I sent it in for a free cleaning before the warranty expires. Since I was sending the body in, I also sent the 50 STM and the 70-200 mentioned on this thread.

Took them 35 (!) days to service my gear, and when it got back here are the technician's reports:
- 5d3 was working fine, sensor cleaned
- 50mm STM was perfect, nothing done
- 70-200mm calibrated for both front and back focus

After I got it back, shot with the 70-200 for a week and WOW, it's much better now. Much more accurate and doesn't miss focus like before.

I'm happy that I finally got it working properly, it wasn't bad before but I was a bit disappointed for spending so much money and still missing shots. Was blaming myself, changing shooting techniques, trying all types of AF adjustments and nothing helped.

It sucks that such a high end product comes out of the box in need of adjustments that will leave you without your gear for over a month!

Presumably, you had never AFMAed your 70-200mm?

I did, but never got a consistent result regardless of the adjustment. I could adjust for a very specific test with tripod, iso 100, mirror lockup, contrasting subject etc...but when in the real life applications it would miss focus almost half kf the time anyways.