Q. regarding 70-200 2.8 IS II infinity performance @ 200mm

[d]

Just curious to hear about people's experiences using the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II at 200mm when focused at infinity.

I'm struggling the get decently sharp shots when shooting with this FL and distance - images lack the crispness that I get when using a shorter focal length, or with closer focus distances.

Initially thought it was my technique and/or AF back or front focus, but did a little test the other night shooting the moon, and after locking the lens off on the tripod, using LV to focus, and shooting with mirror up and delay mode (and stopping down to both f/4 and f/5.6) was still underwhelmed with the results.

Just wondering is this is generally considered a weak area of this lens, or whether I maybe need to get Canon to take a look at my copy?

Cheers,
d.

 

[StoneColdCoffee]

Hi d,

sorry to hear about the lens. mines about 4 years old and ive had good results. When I first bough it I had it on a T1i and got great results. even the moon. When I bought a 5DII I was getting more mixed results. The autofocus missed at times especially trying to shoot animals that were far away. when I started reading the forum here, they talked about adjusting the AFMA. when I first tried it by manual adjustments in the camera, they didn't come out very well (shoot-adjust-shoot-adjust) and I even think I adjusted the wrong direction so make sure you read up on it. After that I just bought FoCal. Its a pain to stand out in your yard with a laptop but it works pretty good when it runs through the complete cycle. And I think FoCal likes you to decide where you want your maximum sharpness at ( ie 70mm, 100mm, 200mm) so you can tailor it more towards what you shoot most. one nice thing is that it gives you data so you can see your sharpest aperture is. Not sure what body you are using but lots of others have good advice here too. here's an old post that might help if you intend to go this direction. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18325.0
good luck and lets us know what you find out.

 

[TeT]

AS A QUICK TEST

What else do you have that shoots at 200mm?

You could also match the 200mm framing with a shorter lens (all at infinity focus). Should be similar...

do it both manual and auto focus to see what you get....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Shooting far distant objects is difficult because all that air distorts the images. Its one of the reasons that lens test results usually show lower performance for long lenses, they have to test them at long distances, and even 100 ft of air has a big effect, a mile of air can have a huge effect, and a hundred miles of air always is a issue.

The other obvious reason is that your lens has been knocked out of adjustment and needs to be tuned up.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

This thread is useless without pictures

Post some pictures so we have something to go on. Without pictures we have to assume:

- part of it is down to the air degrading the IQ.
- part of it is down to insufficient shutter speed.
- part of it is down to the higher ISO/wider aperture used to get a sufficiently high shutter speed.
- a very small part of it is down to the lens being weakest at 200mm

If the lens is out of spec it would be very noticeable. Post pictures!

 

[Nitroman]

Personally, I've tested my 70-200mm f4 IS zoom and it's also a bit soft at 200mm.

The lens is known to be excellent, but at the extreme 200mm it's not at it's best.

Try photographing a brick wall at a distance of 20 feet or more at different apertures and you'll see how much the aperture changes the lens quality.

May even be worth getting Canon to check the lens if you're not happy.

 

[d]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone!

Camera is a 1Dx, and yes I've considered it could simply have been degradation due to atmospheric conditions etc.

I'm generally very happy with the lens, but noticed the issue first when on a holiday day to Iceland over the 2014/15 new year period, and just couldn't seem to land a crisp shot at the lens' longer focal lengths and with far subjects. I was mostly hand-holding there (often with IS), and the light ain't plentiful, so ISO went up and shutter speeds down, so I put it down to that.

I'll have to wait until I'm home again to pull more examples, but I have on hand one of the moon shots my first message relates to - here's a 100% screen grab from LR, with all adjustments set to 0 (apart from pulling exposure a couple of stops) - given that conditions seemed pretty good (we were using binoculars as well that revealed a decent amount of detail on the surface) I was expecting to get a bit better than this. This is at 2.8, but images at 4 and 5.6 didn't seem any better.

dp

EDIT: I should reiterate this is locked off on the tripod, remote shutter release, MLU + delay mode, focussed manually with LV.

 

[9VIII]

I agree that using a still subject would be best.
The moon is moving a lot faster than most people realize.

 

[Ozarker]

I agree that using a still subject would be best.
The moon is moving a lot faster than most people realize.

That is too funny!

 

[Ozarker]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone!

Camera is a 1Dx, and yes I've considered it could simply have been degradation due to atmospheric conditions etc.

I'm generally very happy with the lens, but noticed the issue first when on a holiday day to Iceland over the 2014/15 new year period, and just couldn't seem to land a crisp shot at the lens' longer focal lengths and with far subjects. I was mostly hand-holding there (often with IS), and the light ain't plentiful, so ISO went up and shutter speeds down, so I put it down to that.

I'll have to wait until I'm home again to pull more examples, but I have on hand one of the moon shots my first message relates to - here's a 100% screen grab from LR, with all adjustments set to 0 (apart from pulling exposure a couple of stops) - given that conditions seemed pretty good (we were using binoculars as well that revealed a decent amount of detail on the surface) I was expecting to get a bit better than this. This is at 2.8, but images at 4 and 5.6 didn't seem any better.

dp

EDIT: I should reiterate this is locked off on the tripod, remote shutter release, MLU + delay mode, focussed manually with LV.

1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?

2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus.

3. Was the camera in manual mode? If not, it should be for this.

4. Were you in the city or the country?

5. How far was the tripod extended? Was there a weight used? Was there any wind?

 

[d]

1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?

2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus.

3. Was the camera in manual mode? If not, it should be for this.

4. Were you in the city or the country?

5. How far was the tripod extended? Was there a weight used? Was there any wind?

What happened to all the other version of this post with all the extra questions - did you decide to change it?

1. Lunar eclipse on the 4th.

2. Live View can be set to either simulate the exposure, or auto adjust brightness when viewing. I use the latter - it did not look like the sun, and has no influence on being able to gauge focus in LV anyway.

3. Of course.

4. Country.

5. Tripod setup was more than up to the task, conditions were perfect.

d.

 

[d]

I agree that using a still subject would be best.
The moon is moving a lot faster than most people realize.

It's not moving that quickly that you'd get motion blur at 1/100 second.

Let me be clear, I wasn't trying to test lens sharpness shooting the moon - I was shooting the moon, and noticed the results I was getting weren't as good as I would expect given the reputation of this lens, and that to the best of my knowledge the support system and technique used should kill just about any chance of vibration affecting sharpness.

I haven't got any other shoots with this lens on a tripod - I've only shot with it hand-held since purchasing it, otherwise I would post an image of a stationary subject. And I would shoot something new to check, but atm I'm arriving at work when it's dark, and leaving in the dark, so don't have any daylight hours when I'm free this week. Maybe on the weekend I'll get a chance...

So perhaps my question should be...assuming sound technique and a within-spec lens, should this image of the moon be sharper?

Cheers,
d.

 

[meywd]

This is a 100% crop of a shot taken in December, its not @ f/2.8 but i don't think that's your problem, its mostly blur either from camera shake(wind?) or from the shutter speed, even at 1/400 i got some blurry ones, so the faster you go the better, also i think using AF is safe here.

Edit: this was taken with the 2xTC II

ISO400 400mm f/11 1/400

 

[GMCPhotographics]

When shooting something like the moon, make sure there are no thermals between you and the subject...ie any house roofs between you...or the thermal air movement will kill your sharpness.
Have you calibrated your lens and camera? I tends to help a bit too...or pop it on a tripod (turning off the IS unit) and use live view.

 

[Ozarker]

1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?

2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus.

3. Was the camera in manual mode? If not, it should be for this.

4. Were you in the city or the country?

5. How far was the tripod extended? Was there a weight used? Was there any wind?

What happened to all the other version of this post with all the extra questions - did you decide to change it?

Answer: Yes

1. Lunar eclipse on the 4th.

Answer: Ahhh yes, the eclipse.

2. Live View can be set to either simulate the exposure, or auto adjust brightness when viewing. I use the latter - it did not look like the sun, and has no influence on being able to gauge focus in LV anyway.

Answer: You say that you used the latter. So it was set to auto adjust brightness when viewing? I think the former would have been better. Were you manually focusing?

5. Tripod setup was more than up to the task, conditions were perfect.

Answer:The camera was low to the ball head and the legs not fully extended? The moon is a tiny dot at that focal length on a full frame 1DX. Any tiny movement is going to give one blur. One wants the tripod set as short and squat as possible if one wants the sharpest possible focus on tiny distant objects. That's really what I am asking about the tripod. I've got carbon fiber tripods, but when I shoot the moon, I try not to set them up for my comfort, rather, for the least possibility of movement. You did all that with MLU, delay, remote shutter release, etc. That is why I ask about the tripod. Does "Tripod set up was more than up to task" reference gear or setup?

6. Was there a filter of any kind on the lens?

7. Manual or AF?

d.

 

[d]

When shooting something like the moon, make sure there are no thermals between you and the subject...ie any house roofs between you...or the thermal air movement will kill your sharpness.
Have you calibrated your lens and camera? I tends to help a bit too...or pop it on a tripod (turning off the IS unit) and use live view.

As mentioned above my post of the moon image, I *was* on a tripod, and focussing manually with LV.

Cheers,
d

 

[d]

1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?

2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus.

3. Was the camera in manual mode? If not, it should be for this.

4. Were you in the city or the country?

5. How far was the tripod extended? Was there a weight used? Was there any wind?

What happened to all the other version of this post with all the extra questions - did you decide to change it?

Answer: Yes

1. Lunar eclipse on the 4th.

Answer: Ahhh yes, the eclipse.

2. Live View can be set to either simulate the exposure, or auto adjust brightness when viewing. I use the latter - it did not look like the sun, and has no influence on being able to gauge focus in LV anyway.

Answer: You say that you used the latter. So it was set to auto adjust brightness when viewing? I think the former would have been better. Were you manually focusing?

5. Tripod setup was more than up to the task, conditions were perfect.

Answer:The camera was low to the ball head and the legs not fully extended? The moon is a tiny dot at that focal length on a full frame 1DX. Any tiny movement is going to give one blur. One wants the tripod set as short and squat as possible if one wants the sharpest possible focus on tiny distant objects. That's really what I am asking about the tripod. I've got carbon fiber tripods, but when I shoot the moon, I try not to set them up for my comfort, rather, for the least possibility of movement. You did all that with MLU, delay, remote shutter release, etc. That is why I ask about the tripod. Does "Tripod set up was more than up to task" reference gear or setup?

6. Was there a filter of any kind on the lens?

7. Manual or AF?

d.

I really don't require a tutorial on tripod use - as stated earlier, assume the setup was sound and conditions were perfect (because they both were)...I just want to know whether @200mm 2.8 focussed to infinity, this lens would be expected to deliver sharper details than what is seen here.

 

[Ozarker]

1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?

2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus.

3. Was the camera in manual mode? If not, it should be for this.

4. Were you in the city or the country?

5. How far was the tripod extended? Was there a weight used? Was there any wind?

What happened to all the other version of this post with all the extra questions - did you decide to change it?

Answer: Yes

1. Lunar eclipse on the 4th.

Answer: Ahhh yes, the eclipse.

2. Live View can be set to either simulate the exposure, or auto adjust brightness when viewing. I use the latter - it did not look like the sun, and has no influence on being able to gauge focus in LV anyway.

Answer: You say that you used the latter. So it was set to auto adjust brightness when viewing? I think the former would have been better. Were you manually focusing?

5. Tripod setup was more than up to the task, conditions were perfect.

Answer:The camera was low to the ball head and the legs not fully extended? The moon is a tiny dot at that focal length on a full frame 1DX. Any tiny movement is going to give one blur. One wants the tripod set as short and squat as possible if one wants the sharpest possible focus on tiny distant objects. That's really what I am asking about the tripod. I've got carbon fiber tripods, but when I shoot the moon, I try not to set them up for my comfort, rather, for the least possibility of movement. You did all that with MLU, delay, remote shutter release, etc. That is why I ask about the tripod. Does "Tripod set up was more than up to task" reference gear or setup?

6. Was there a filter of any kind on the lens?

7. Manual or AF?

d.

I really don't require a tutorial on tripod use - as stated earlier, assume the setup was sound and conditions were perfect (because they both were)...I just want to know whether @200mm 2.8 focussed to infinity, this lens would be expected to deliver sharper details than what is seen here.

In that case, my answer is a simple yes.

 

[Hector1970]

There are so many variables
The moon is so far away and a small object in a big sky.
It's moving too.
My 70-200 is sharp but I'd reasonable in my expectations.
Even at 400mm the moon isn't that big.
Borrow something bigger and see if that gets you better results.
A smaller moon often has more contrast. You see the craters more clearly.

 

[mackguyver]

1. Where did you take the shot, geographically? That will determine environmental issues. I live in Florida and on a typical humid night, that's about what I'd expect for sharpness.

2. How did you focus in LV? Manually or using contrast AF? Generally I find that using contrast AF (using the remote to activate AF) is most accurate. In both cases, is it possible you moved the camera, even a tiny bit, with your hands, affecting focus before you tripped the shutter?