First outing with 7D+70-200 2.8 II

[llie19]

Unfortunately did not turn out as stellar as I thought it would. I used manual mode, 1/1000 shutter speed at f/2.8, af expansion around center point. The background blur is there, which is nice, but somehow the sharpness just does not come close to what everybody makes it out to be. I was expecting the pictures to be razor sharp, but they don't really look that much superior to the other pictures I took with a 550D+55-250 (1/10 the price of 70-200 2.8 II). I am baffled. As much as I am aware of my photographic incompetence, I really want to be assured that my newly purchased lens is a good copy.

I also posted these on the lens sample thread, and someone mentioned that the overcast lighting may have contributed to the (perceived) lack of sharpness. I really just hope it's my poor shooting, or me being paranoid, not anything wrong with the lens.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/5152571484_3356363f99_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1167/5151962275_fee9e1c49b_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/5151961591_8b47ab503e_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1114/5151963011_eeb456ce56_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/5152574718_292ac84a82_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1140/5151965533_06dbd75447_b.jpg

[llie19]

These are some previous shots with 550D+55-250 posted here. Putting aside the lighting differences for a moment, I can't really tell much difference in pure image quality, and I thought upgrading from 55-250 to 70-200 II would make the difference between night and day.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=950270

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=953176

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=946332

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=936974

[canonnoob]

upgrading lenses doesnt make up for technique. your images show focus being off and you have too slow of a shutter speed. White Balance is also off as well as the images being a tad dark. Just because you got a new lens doesnt mean that you are now going to get the most amazing shots ever. I tried looking for some settings to get an idea of what you were shooting at, but alas, no setting information.

[llie19]

Thank you. I completely agree that the photographer makes the biggest difference in picture quality, but if you read what I wrote I am not putting any blame on the lens, in fact I want all the blame to be on myself, thus the lens is working fine.

Somehow all the pictures lose their exif after being uploaded into flickr. Here is one set of basic info, and most pictures should have the same:

Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/2.8
Exposure Program Manual
White Balance Auto


upgrading lenses doesnt make up for technique. your images show focus being off and you have too slow of a shutter speed. White Balance is also off as well as the images being a tad dark. Just because you got a new lens doesnt mean that you are now going to get the most amazing shots ever. I tried looking for some settings to get an idea of what you were shooting at, but alas, no setting information.

[LiberationFrequency]

In soccer I like to keep shutter around 1/2000, and whatever the iso ends up being, thats what it is. I regularly end up shooting iso400 during daytime to keep the shutter up (clouds depending) and leaning to the right a touch. It might seem excessive but the noise is basically non-existent if you frame it right.

[canonnoob]

ISO? I would assume you didnt have the ISO pushed too much, these are at least 1/3rd stop or so underexposed. That is contributing to the issue.

[DHMN]

I can't really tell much difference in pure image quality, and I thought upgrading from 55-250 to 70-200 II would make the difference between night and day.

This kind of does sound like blaming the lens though....

The biggest problem in your comparison is.. the shots with the 55-250 were shot in sunlight.. these all look like late afternoon and cloudy so I doubt that ISO 400 even at F2.8 would be enough in the given situation.

[pprice]

Underexposed for sure is one of your issues (as said), and I agree you need a fester shutter speed for these (maybe due to the fast action, camera shake, who knows).

It is pretty easy to tell if you have a sharp copy just by throwing it on a tripod and taking some controlled shots.

[chrisg19]

I have found that if it isn't absolutely necessary I try not to use the 2.8 with the lens for best sharpness as well. It seems when it is opened all the way up it is not as sharp. When you have to use it for indoors or something, then the 2.8 is great, but if I am able to, I use something higher.

[llie19]

I see. Part of my mistake must be that I am still doing things the old way by not setting shutter speed high enough (55-250 has a max aperture of 5.6 on the long end, and I don't like high ISO if I don't absolutely need to), and the results is some motion blure especially on the ball. That makes sense, will raise the shutter speed next time. I guess with f/2.8 doubling the shutter speed from before is not a problem.

In soccer I like to keep shutter around 1/2000, and whatever the iso ends up being, thats what it is. I regularly end up shooting iso400 during daytime to keep the shutter up (clouds depending) and leaning to the right a touch. It might seem excessive but the noise is basically non-existent if you frame it right.

ISO? I would assume you didnt have the ISO pushed too much, these are at least 1/3rd stop or so underexposed. That is contributing to the issue.

[llie19]

I used evaluative metering for these, should I have looked at the photos and decide to up the exposure compensation? I raised the exposure and brightness in LR, but I agree some still look underexposed. How do you all set the metering on a cloudy day? Thanks.

ISO? I would assume you didnt have the ISO pushed too much, these are at least 1/3rd stop or so underexposed. That is contributing to the issue.

[SuzyView]

I haven't read if you did any sharpening to the final images. There is always some USM needed even if you shoot 1/1000. I shot at 1/2000 yesterday with my 7D and 70-200 2.8 IS Ver I and the images turned out fine, but I still needed some tweaking. It's normal to do that. Also, ISO was at 100-200 as it was very bright. Wide open, f2.8 is great, go to 4.0 and it's really great. Your shots are acceptable. It's really in how you are capturing the images and how you're sharpening after.

[Dennis Valet]

Also, any post processing on these? Doesn't look like you sharpened them in LR or PS

[llie19]

OK, that part I was questioning the lens performance, but I was really just worried. In hindsight I guess if you want 1/2000 shutter speed at 2.8, you might have to bump ISO to as high as 800? I shot in manual mode, and set the shutter speed and aperture, and let ISO be automatic, is this a good way to shoot under this condition?

This kind of does sound like blaming the lens though....

The biggest problem in your comparison is.. the shots with the 55-250 were shot in sunlight.. these all look like late afternoon and cloudy so I doubt that ISO 400 even at F2.8 would be enough in the given situation.

[SuzyView]

I set my ISO as low as it can get, around 100-400 outdoors, 5000 on my 7D the other night for football. Aperture makes a huge difference for sharpness and speed, so f2.8 is really pushing it. I only shoot 2.8 in extreme conditions, not in bright light, but at night, don't have much of a choice. Still, I shoot M as well, speed is what I adjust most of the time.

[llie19]

I also thought about stopping it down somewhat and see what the results look like. The reason I could not wait to try 2.8 was the reviews say this lens has a significant improvement in sharpness compared to mark I. What aperture would you recommend using, somewhere between 2.8 and 4? I would think it's not meaningful to go below 4.

I have found that if it isn't absolutely necessary I try not to use the 2.8 with the lens for best sharpness as well. It seems when it is opened all the way up it is not as sharp. When you have to use it for indoors or something, then the 2.8 is great, but if I am able to, I use something higher.

[Cozmocha]

What camera are you using with auto iso?

[llie19]

Thanks. I adjusted sharpness (from 25 to 40), raised contrast and saturation slightly, and did the lens correction in LR. When pictures look dark, I raised the exposure/brightness a little. That's about everything. Does LR do USM? I never used photoshop, and somehow I was under the impression that sports shooting compared to other types of photography (wedding, portraiture, landscape) requires less post-processing, but I am willing to learn if more post-processing make the pictures look better.

I haven't read if you did any sharpening to the final images. There is always some USM needed even if you shoot 1/1000. I shot at 1/2000 yesterday with my 7D and 70-200 2.8 IS Ver I and the images turned out fine, but I still needed some tweaking. It's normal to do that. Also, ISO was at 100-200 as it was very bright. Wide open, f2.8 is great, go to 4.0 and it's really great. Your shots are acceptable. It's really in how you are capturing the images and how you're sharpening after.

[llie19]

The camera is 7D, manual mode, 1/1000,2.8, and aperture on auto. I did not do exposure compensation, in hindsight I should have.

What camera are you using with auto iso?

[llie19]

slightly increased sharpness in LR, increased the amount to 40.

Also, any post processing on these? Doesn't look like you sharpened them in LR or PS

[llie19]

I checked, ISO were mostly between 100-250, occasionally to 320. I set it on manual and trusted the metering, and somehow never noticed any underexposure looking at the LCD during the game, that's one thing I learned this time.

ISO? I would assume you didnt have the ISO pushed too much, these are at least 1/3rd stop or so underexposed. That is contributing to the issue.

[Cozmocha]

Trust the histogram more then the image on the screen when checking for exposure.

[llie19]

good call. i am just surprised and frustrated that i never spotted any sign of underexposure when checking photos during shooting.

Trust the histogram more then the image on the screen when checking for exposure.

[DRLPhotog]

I checked, ISO were mostly between 100-250, occasionally to 320. I set it on manual and trusted the metering, and somehow never noticed any underexposure looking at the LCD during the game, that's one thing I learned this time.

One thing I learned from a few folks on this forum was to set the desired shutter speed and aperture, then adjust ISO (manually) to achieve a good exposure...all in M mode. That's helped me this fall shooting football with my 7D + 55-250.

[DHMN]

The camera is 7D, manual mode, 1/1000,2.8, and aperture on auto. I did not do exposure compensation, in hindsight I should have.

Outdoors when it's going from cloudy to sunny, etc.. I find Av mode better than manual and would help the underexposed stuff. Plus the 7D (not getting mine until mid-week) shouldn't affect your photos if you even went to ISO 640 or 800 in the (or 1600 from examples I've seen on here but I'm sure it wasn't ISO 1600 dark)) and Av will get you pretty good exposure.

[llie19]

Thanks. I will be generous on the ISO in the future, and your are right, noise should not be a problem all the way up to ISO 1000 or so. I wonder why the camera's auto metering comes out underexposed and did not account for the cloudy sky?

Outdoors when it's going from cloudy to sunny, etc.. I find Av mode better than manual and would help the underexposed stuff. Plus the 7D (not getting mine until mid-week) shouldn't affect your photos if you even went to ISO 640 or 800 in the (or 1600 from examples I've seen on here but I'm sure it wasn't ISO 1600 dark)) and Av will get you pretty good exposure.

[kb9tdj]

Don't be afraid of high ISO, especially on the 7D. I'll set it all the way up to 6400 (and 12800 for the especially bad situations) to get the shutter speed I need. I use LR3 to PP my images which does a great job of noise reduction and have several 6400/12800 images published in the county paper. If I am shooting that high, I always make sure to err on the side of slight overexposure so as not to exaggerate the noise. As they say, always better slightly noisy than blurry.


Thanks. I will be generous on the ISO in the future, and your are right, noise should not be a problem all the way up to ISO 1000 or so. I wonder why the camera's auto metering comes out underexposed and did not account for the cloudy sky?

[WxguyGrant]

I'm a bit surprised you chose to shoot manual. I shoot all my sports in Av. Do a lot of you shoot sports full manual?

[SuzyView]

Full manual as conditions change and setting at Av won't let you push the shutter speed.

[llie19]

I previously also used TV, because otherwise the camera sometimes seems reluctant to get a high shutter speed. Recently I started using manual, I choose to do manual particularly for this time, as I want it wide open and at a speed I can set. I know a lot of sports shooters use AV.

I'm a bit surprised you chose to shoot manual. I shoot all my sports in Av. Do a lot of you shoot sports full manual?

[SuzyView]

I push the ISO on the 7D. It's amazing. The 40D at 1600 does have a lot of noise and bad color in these night football events. The 7D is what I wanted from my gear for sports.

[canonnoob]

I previously also used TV, because otherwise the camera sometimes seems reluctant to get a high shutter speed. Recently I started using manual, I choose to do manual particularly for this time, as I want it wide open and at a speed I can set. I know a lot of sports shooters use AV.

Well you have a bit of a misunderstanding. You have to shoot in what ever mode in order to get the shot and the job done right. There is no "one perfect mode". Since you went with manual, you have to pay attention to your settings at all times to get what you need for a properly exposed photo. Dont be afraid to push your camera body's ISO. You have a 7d, not a 10d.

[llie19]

just where did you catch me opposing to that view in my posts? i did not say there is only one correct mode to shoot sports, nor do i believe so.

Well you have a bit of a misunderstanding. You have to shoot in what ever mode in order to get the shot and the job done right. There is no "one perfect mode".

[chrishunt]

Congrats on the lens.

The three things I notice most: underexposed, white balance is too cool, and distracting backgrounds (specifically 1, 2 and 4).

All of the posted images would be improved with sharpening.

The last image appears to be out of focus.

2 would be even better if we saw the faces.

Luckily, none of these critiques have anything to do with the lens and they're all easy to fix. Nice job!

[llie19]

Thanks for the detailing the issues. All you said was true and indeed the results of my ineptitude. will try to improve on those in the future.

Congrats on the lens.

The three things I notice most: underexposed, white balance is too cool, and distracting backgrounds (specifically 1, 2 and 4).

All of the posted images would be improved with sharpening.

The last image appears to be out of focus.

2 would be even better if we saw the faces.

Luckily, none of these critiques have anything to do with the lens and they're all easy to fix. Nice job!