Expecting too much from 70-200 2.8 IS?

[Chuck Ward]

I purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS a couple of months ago and am less than satisfied with it. My 100% crops at distances of 100/300 yards are not sharp at all. Such as: a license plate at 300 yards, 1/500/3.5, IS on, camera on sandbag. Should I be able to read the numbers? Thanks for your opinions

[ACDCROCKS]

Personallly I think your expecting A little too much, if It was A 400MM i would question it though, not a 200MM. The farther the way it is, the less pixels there are to make the obect bigger. The bigger it is, the more pixels, the clearer it is ( If that Makes sense).
Don't sell your lens, it's a good one, I want one....

[tim]

Is it blurry, or is there just not enough information there to see the plate?

[Chuck Ward]

The pictures seem blurry to my untrained eye......even some that were focused on objects 20 or so yards away. (Although, I have taken a few with flash that were very sharp I don't think I have taken any without that were.) I was hoping before I bought the lens that even though my subject might not be as large as I wanted at longer distances, I could crop (not over 100%) and come up with an acceptable image. Would a 2x extender be a help at longer distances? Thanks for your help.

[EricKonieczny]

post the image. Post 2 images, one that is the full image downsized, and then a 100 % crop of what you were were trying to focus on.

[Chuck Ward]

Another of my limitations is that I don't know how to resize images to post on this forum. :o I hope these are good enough for viewing.:)

[stormywhether]

Chuck, is that image shot with the lens on full zoom? If so, it's not entirely surprising that you can't pick out the plate information. It's a bit like shooting a haystack from a mile away with a Bigma on a tripod and trying to spot the needle.

[Chuck Ward]

This image WAS shot at full zoom. Maybe I'm asking too much from this lens. I'll experiment with it some more....Thanks

[defordphoto]

Need EXIF info. Looks like it was shot on high ISO, which is a downfall for the Drebel.

[Chuck Ward]

Here is the EXIF....ISO was a little high at 400....

File Name
Sunday Afternoon 003.jpg
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Shooting Date/Time
10/2/2005 4:42:50 PM
Shooting Mode
Shutter Speed Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/500
Av( Aperture Value )
3.5
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
400
Lens
70.0 - 200.0mm
Focal Length
200.0mm
Image Size
3072x2048
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
AF Mode
AI Focus AF
Parameters
Contrast +1
Sharpness +1
Color saturation +1
Color tone Normal
Color Space
sRGB
File Size
3688KB
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting
Owner's Name
Camera Body No.
0860340467
Thanks for your help........

[munchy]

It looks as though you have *a lot* of JPEG compression on that close up. I am thinking of buying the 70-200f4 which should have pretty much the same optics. I must admit, I would be pretty dissapointed! Anyone else got a similar test shot @ 200mm?

[Andy_T]

To me it looks as if the resolution of the camera is not high enough to read the plate ... you have 3000 pixels horizontally. Can't really guess what percentage of the image the license plate occupies, but if it's 2%, then you're talking about 60 pixels to display - how many, 5? - letters?

Plus, you have haze, reflections, flare on the plate from the direct sunlight ... won't work.

Won't work, IMO.

Best regards,
Andy

[tim]

To me it looks like a camera resolution issue. That's a tiny, tiny area you're trying to enlarge, how many pixels wide is the number plate in the original photo?

[RandyMN]

1/500/3.5, IS on, camera on sandbag. Should I be able to read the numbers?

This might be a relatively simple point but I see no mention of it by anyone. Your camera is an image stabalizer but you sate it is on a sandbag. Do you have the IS turned on or off?

You should have it off anytime you are using a tripod, or in your case, a sandbag. Image stabalizers have a tendency to actually blur your pictures if turned on while being used on a tripod.

[PetKal]

Once the camera shake ceases to be a concern (i.e., camera on a sandbag), then one could try to secure a better focus by goin' down in speed (shutter and/or ISO) to allow a corresponding increase in DOF.

[DavidEB]

I wouldn't draw any conclusions about a telephoto unless it was mounted on a good tripod, with mirror lockup and a cable release. Re-focus for each of three shots and take the best. Ensure that the subject is a flat surface at right angles to the line of view.

Otherwise you've got camera motion, focus errors and depth-of-field issues confounding the decision about glass quality.

[PEACHMAN]

A few weeks ago I purchased a Sigma 7--200 2.8 and went thru this same doubting process for the same reasons...Things shot in the opened up range f2.8-3.5 were not as sharp as I thought they would be, until there was a reasonable amount of light . Then things got a lot better alot quicker...I have just come to accept reality...things are not going to get better than the light of the day...If it's a grey day, then the camera is not going to respond that well no matter the apature opening...and shots I made at 150 yards just can't crop someone out for an 8X10 ,,,what I have found is that it is beautiful at 10-40 yards in reasonable light...still bright at below f4, but soft.:confused: I know it's not the canon, but I'm learning to love this lens...I have accepted enjoying things that it can do, not things that I wish it can do..;)

[guitarman]

A few weeks ago I purchased a Sigma 7--200 2.8 and went thru this same doubting process for the same reasons...Things shot in the opened up range f2.8-3.5 were not as sharp as I thought they would be, until there was a reasonable amount of light . Then things got a lot better alot quicker...I have just come to accept reality...things are not going to get better than the light of the day...If it's a grey day, then the camera is not going to respond that well no matter the apature opening...and shots I made at 150 yards just can't crop someone out for an 8X10 ,,,what I have found is that it is beautiful at 10-40 yards in reasonable light...still bright at below f4, but soft.:confused: I know it's not the canon, but I'm learning to love this lens...I have accepted enjoying things that it can do, not things that I wish it can do..;)

Thats strange you don't get good results on a grey day. sometimes my shots turn out much better on grey days than really sunny days where the light is really harsh. Sure the shutter speeds might be quick, but even on grey cloudy day at F4-5.6 I can get 1/500

[chris clements]

This might be a relatively simple point but I see no mention of it by anyone. Your camera is an image stabalizer but you sate it is on a sandbag. Do you have the IS turned on or off?

You should have it off anytime you are using a tripod, or in your case, a sandbag. Image stabalizers have a tendency to actually blur your pictures if turned on while being used on a tripod.

This lens has 'smart' IS. The gyros will shut down if the lens is rock steady, whatever position the switch is in.

[PEACHMAN]

Thats strange you don't get good results on a grey day. sometimes my shots turn out much better on grey days than really sunny days where the light is really harsh. Sure the shutter speeds might be quick, but even on grey cloudy day at F4-5.6 I can get 1/500

I think I said or ment to say in the wide open modes, f2.8-3.5..and it still works and some times well at openings at 5+...but not like on well lit days..

but I have got some real keepers,,especially after learning the limitations of the lens...remember that I have only had it for 3 weeks:D

[RandyMN]

This lens has 'smart' IS. The gyros will shut down if the lens is rock steady, whatever position the switch is in.

So why does it have an on/off switch?

[RandyMN]

Chris, I'm curious as I own this same lens and the only thing I've found related to 'smart IS' is this :

A tripod is unsuitable when your subject is moving on its own. You need the ability to follow your subject under a variety of outdoor conditions, and Canon's IS technology makes tracking and keeping your outdoor subjects in view easy. Canon has taken its renowned Image Stabilizer technology from its high-performance camcorder family and adapted it for its IS binoculars as well.

I can not find it on the 70-200 IS L series lens. I'll need to test this to see if it's true because I always shut mine off while on the tripod.

[J Rabin]

Chuck.
As a 70-200 IS owner along with lesser telezooms, I'll take a whack. There is likely nothing wrong with your lens, but there may be lots wrong with your exposure.

Question 1. Was this day hazy? Your image shows a definite lack of contrast that either results from flare (which this lens has nil), over exposure (which maybe some of your problem, or haze. Haze is easy to see outside, and easy to see in image editing as a "narrow" histogram. With a hazy day, one can not see good detail at infinity focus. Here is a hazy day shooting sequence, tree line color like your image, with a lesser lens, but I adjusted exposure and contrast to compensate:
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Aerial%20Application/slides/Crop%20Dusting%2012.htm


Question 2. Are you over-exposing or is white balance is off? This image clearly has exposure problems if it's not simply haze.


Question 3. If focus detail at infinity is what you want/need, why are you shooting at f/3.5 if you have a shutter of 1/500? Go to the Canon Museum website, and look at the paper thin depth of field for this lens. If you want to be assured of a focus plane thicker than hair, use f/5.6 or greater.
I shot this with the 70-200 IS at low f/stop because I wanted creative defocus:
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/T-Town%20Lehigh%20Velo/Charles_C/slides/Charles%20C%20at%20T-Town%2001.htm
I don't think that's your goal.

So, if your lens is not faulty, may I suggest some user education on:
a. long lens technique?
b. exposure under high contrast or high subject brightness range outdoors?
Jack

[chris clements]

Chris, I'm curious as I own this same lens and the only thing I've found related to 'smart IS' is this :

A tripod is unsuitable when your subject is moving on its own. You need the ability to follow your subject under a variety of outdoor conditions, and Canon's IS technology makes tracking and keeping your outdoor subjects in view easy. Canon has taken its renowned Image Stabilizer technology from its high-performance camcorder family and adapted it for its IS binoculars as well.

I can not find it on the 70-200 IS L series lens. I'll need to test this to see if it's true because I always shut mine off while on the tripod.


Randy

Like you, I always switch the IS off (If I remember) when using this lens on a tripod. But this is just a good housekeeping issue (battery life), not an image quality one.

In the earliest IS lenses like the 28-135, the IS will keep 'hunting' when the lens is on a tripod - so your "switch off to get optimum sharpness" point is well made for these lenses.

In the later IS lenses, I'm best to quote straight from the 70-200 manual :-
"when taking pictures with a tripod, even if the stabilizer switch is set to ON the IS function does not operate because the electronic circuits in the lens automatically detect that a tripod is being used. However, because electrical power is still being supplied to the image stabilizer unit, battery life is roughly 20% shorter than it would be with the switch set to off".

My 10 cents worth on the original question of this thread echoes several other responses: you're asking/expecting too much. However good (or bad) the resolving power of lens may be, and whatever the atmospheric conditions, with such an extreme crop the number plate must only be registering on a tiny number of receptors.

[PEACHMAN]

Chuck.
As a 70-200 IS owner along with lesser telezooms, I'll take a whack. There is likely nothing wrong with your lens, but there may be lots wrong with your exposure.

Question 1. Was this day hazy? Your image shows a definite lack of contrast that either results from flare (which this lens has nil), over exposure (which maybe some of your problem, or haze. Haze is easy to see outside, and easy to see in image editing as a "narrow" histogram. With a hazy day, one can not see good detail at infinity focus. Here is a hazy day shooting sequence, tree line color like your image, with a lesser lens, but I adjusted exposure and contrast to compensate:
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Aerial%20Application/slides/Crop%20Dusting%2012.htm


Question 2. Are you over-exposing or is white balance is off? This image clearly has exposure problems if it's not simply haze.


Question 3. If focus detail at infinity is what you want/need, why are you shooting at f/3.5 if you have a shutter of 1/500? Go to the Canon Museum website, and look at the paper thin depth of field for this lens. If you want to be assured of a focus plane thicker than hair, use f/5.6 or greater.
I shot this with the 70-200 IS at low f/stop because I wanted creative defocus:
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/T-Town%20Lehigh%20Velo/Charles_C/slides/Charles%20C%20at%20T-Town%2001.htm
I don't think that's your goal.

So, if your lens is not faulty, may I suggest some user education on:
a. long lens technique?
b. exposure under high contrast or high subject brightness range outdoors?
Jack

Very nice explination and demo with the accompanying photos (cool photos)!