Have you ever had an L lens that sucked?

[mcneguy]

The reason I asked is because I took my new 70-200 f4L out for a spin at the baseball game yesterday, shot about 70 phots, all in RAW. I was shooting in either 400 or 800 iso at f4 for 1/250 or 1/500 depending on the light, all at the full 200mm. All the pictures are fuzzy and grainy, not one of them was sharp enough to print.

Now I realize that the guy holding is more to blame than the camera but this has never happened to me before. I take tack sharp pics with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI and my Canon 50mm. Do I need a monopod, it didn't seem like the camera was shaking, I'm pretty good at anchoring my arms to my body.

[sp00g3]

The reason I asked is because I took my new 70-200 f4L out for a spin at the baseball game yesterday, shot about 70 phots, all in RAW. I was shooting in either 400 or 800 iso at f4 for 1/250 or 1/500 depending on the light, all at the full 200mm. All the pictures are fuzzy and grainy, not one of them was sharp enough to print.

Now I realize that the guy holding is more to blame than the camera but this has never happened to me before. I take tack sharp pics with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI and my Canon 50mm. Do I need a monopod, it didn't seem like the camera was shaking, I'm pretty good at anchoring my arms to my body.

Sounds like you got the rear focusing problem child.. the f4L 70 -200 has this problem 1 out of 10 lenses. Maybe 1 out of 20 even. I would send it back and get it replaced.. btw.. ISO 800 you will see noise.. :)

[Tapeman]

NO!

[roanjohn]

I wish I have more "L" lenses to be able to say yes.......

but.........

The 70-200 f4 L (my one and only) does not suck.

Ro1

[KBMphotography.com]

Must admit I am thoroughly pleased with 2 thus far.

70-200 F2.8 L IS
17-40 F4.0 L

Go Canon Go!

[rsnadel]

If it's relatively new, send it to Canon's service center for adjustment. Mine came back much better than before I sent it.

[Belmondo]

I've purchased 6 different L lenses, and there hasn't been a dud in the lot. :!:

[Motorsports Photo]

I borrowed the 100-400 IS from Canon TWICE. The first time the lens had real abd troubles with only half of the image in focus when using the IS. The second time the shots werent any better than my 100-300 so I've stuck with the non-L .

-Pete

[sjprg]

YES
My 70-200L f/2.8 is horrible at any distance over 30 ft. Been to Canon twice. $400.00 replacement of objective lens. Still Sucks

[mcneguy]

Well, I got it last Thurdsday from B&H. Should I just send it back for a replacement or take it to a dealer and have them send it to the Canon service center?

Since B&H isn't open until Wednesday anyway, maybe I'll try to take more pics with it under more contolled circumstances than a major league baseball game to see what happens.

[Mike H]

I have three L lenses, including the 70-200/4L. They are all marvelous lenses. You might want to work with the lens more before shipping it off. Also, the lens won't cause digital noise; it's more likely the ISO 800 setting, especially if you were underexposed. Check your histograms and evaluate how well exposed the shots were.

Consider getting a monopod. I have found that it definitely helps with this lens. Canon makes a tripod ring ($120) for the lens that allows you to switch from vertical to horizontal orientation very quickly. And it looks sharp, too!

I hope this helps.

Mike

[Tom W]

Well, I got it last Thurdsday from B&H. Should I just send it back for a replacement or take it to a dealer and have them send it to the Canon service center?

Since B&H isn't open until Wednesday anyway, maybe I'll try to take more pics with it under more contolled circumstances than a major league baseball game to see what happens.

By all means, do take some shots under more stationary conditions. A baseball game can be a tough venue to try out a new lens. Best to be sure you have a good one.

[Volatile]

I recently shot some pictures at a baseball game. It was an overcast day, so my goal of shooting my Tamron 200-400 at ISO 100 didn't really work out. The pictures I took at ISO 800 and shutter speed 1/1000 stopped the action like I wanted, but introduced a bunch of noise.

Here is a shameless plug for NEAT IMAGE. Take a look at this screen capture of Neat Image at work:

http://members.cox.net/erin555/Neat%20image%20at%20work.jpg

So don't throw away those pictures yet, they still have a lot of potential.

http://members.cox.net/erin555/sIMG_1906_filtered%20and%20square.jpg

BTW, my 70-200 f4L should get here this week, and I will be comparing the two at 200mm. As a rank amateur, I'm pretty happy with these, and the full rez versions will be great prints.