Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 14 Jun 2010 (Monday) 19:19
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

70-200 One Side Sharper

 
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,860 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Jun 14, 2010 19:19 |  #1

I had a 70-200/2.8 IS for about two years that I sold recently, and I had rented the new MkII version for a bodybuilding show a couple weeks ago, and loved it! The first thing I noticed was that the lens was as sharp in the corners as in the center (or very close). This works great for full body portrait shots where before, the faces might not have been as sharp as the stomach.

Anyway, I eventually bought the lens (another copy) and went shooting yesterday, pics of my friends' dogs. Something didn't necessarily seem quite right but I couldn't put my finger on it (the lighting was brutal though).

Later, it seemed to me that maybe the right side of my pics were not as sharp or contrasty as the middle or left.

It was this quick picture that I took that made me really wonder. It's not a great example, but it's something I saw on almost all of my pics... where the DOF is sharp on the ground, it will be detailed on the left thru to the center, but then on the right it's mush. I can't find the real focus area.

I took this accidentally in single shot AF instead of servo, so focus is not on the car where it should be, but look at the ground and follow the in focus line. I can't for the life of me find it much past center on the right side.

http://img822.imagesha​ck.us/img822/9711/prov​4491.jpgexternal link

I tried taking a picture of my friend today, portrait, with the outer AF point over her glasses. Then I took the same picture with the camera upside down (in portrait mode). This would put the left side over her face. That 2nd shot was much more contrasty and detailed. I could see pores and eyelashes on the upside down shot that I couldn't on the right side up (literally) shot.

This picture is taken in normal portrait mode (ie, right side on top) and the 2nd is taken with the camera upside down (right side down). There definitely seems to be more detail on the "left" side.

http://img815.imagesha​ck.us/img815/2087/prov​4533.jpgexternal link

http://img823.imagesha​ck.us/img823/8233/prov​4534.jpgexternal link

If you layer them in PS and compare say the top area, there definitely seems to be something missing from the "right" side vs the upside down shot.

I know these are pixel peeping pictures, but in just day to day shots, something seems amiss. I've heard of lens elements being out of alignment, but could this even be the case with the camera itself?

I will try to post some better samples later but any thoughts would be appreciated.

All pics taken at F2.8 using the 1D MkIII
.


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Montreal, Canada
Jun 14, 2010 19:24 |  #2

Stand way back from a brick wall and take a shot or a distant shot of any kind, close to infinity focus and see if you have the same problem. Shoot wide open, high shutter speed. Having objects at dufferent distances, different angles always leaves doubt if there really is a problem, imo.

A decentered element will show itself at all distances.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,860 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Jun 14, 2010 19:33 |  #3

Thanks bohdank.
Would a decentered element also cause the "mushiness" on one side? Or just a change of focus?


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Montreal, Canada
Jun 14, 2010 19:35 |  #4

Everything bad :-)


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,860 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Jun 15, 2010 10:15 |  #5

How is this?

http://img37.imageshac​k.us/img37/9677/prov46​58.jpgexternal link

The image seems to move focus from front to back as it goes from left to right. Again, the contrast and sharpness on the flowers and little signs seems way better on the left. However, if I look closely, it almost looks like the focus on the right is more on the window behind the flower. But looking at my orientation, I would think it should be almost even if not the other way around. Focus was on the center of the wall at F2.8 at near infinity around middle of the zoom range.

Anybody else with a MkII lens care to comment on how this looks? I hate shooting brick walls and charts, but there just seemed to be something maybe wrong in my normal day to day pics.


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Combatmedic870's Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Salem ,OR
Jun 15, 2010 10:20 |  #6

Well take it back to the shop and get a new one if you can.


Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.:oops:

LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
yogestee's Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Joined Dec 2007
Australia
Jun 15, 2010 10:49 as a reply to Combatmedic870's post |  #7

The first thing I notice is at f/2.8 your lens is sharp..

I'm looking at the line where the bricks meet the lighter window frames on each side, and once again sharp..

I think you are expecting too much from this lens.. Generally speaking, very few lenses are sharp from corner to corner, edge to edge.. This is reserved for flat field lenses.. Primes are better at this, and prime macros are even better.. Zooms are worse, especially when shot wide open..

There will always be some fall off in resolution from edge to edge..


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,860 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Jun 15, 2010 10:55 |  #8

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10365769external link
Well take it back to the shot and get a new one if you can.

I have that option luckily. I might just go to the store and shoot a couple similar frames with another serial number lens and see how it compares.

yogestee wrote in post #10365905external link
The first thing I notice is at f/2.8 your lens is sharp..

I'm looking at the line where the bricks meet the lighter window frames on each side, and once again sharp..

I think you are expecting too much from this lens.. Generally speaking, very few lenses are sharp from corner to corner, edge to edge.. This is reserved for flat field lenses.. Primes are better at this, and prime macros are even better.. Zooms are worse, especially when shot wide open..

There will always be some fall off in resolution from edge to edge..

Thanks for your input yogestee, I really appreciate it. I am hoping you are correct, and glad to hear you think it's sharp. Have you ever shot with the MkII 70-200, or anything similar? How do you think this compares?

Again, I'm thankful for all your input to help mitigate what might just be buyer's remorse (expecting too much when spending $2800 :) )


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Combatmedic870's Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Salem ,OR
Jun 15, 2010 11:00 |  #9

drisley wrote in post #10365954external link
Again, I'm thankful for all your input to help mitigate what might just be buyer's remorse (expecting too much when spending $2800 :) )

I would expect alot out of a lens when spending that much as well. I plan on getting this lens soon enough and it better be tak sharp!:cool:


Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.:oops:

LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
yogestee's Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Joined Dec 2007
Australia
Jun 15, 2010 11:03 |  #10

drisley wrote in post #10365954external link
Thanks for your input yogestee, I really appreciate it. I am hoping you are correct, and glad to hear you think it's sharp. Have you ever shot with the MkII 70-200, or anything similar? How do you think this compares?

Yes I have.. The 1D MkII was my issued camera along with a 20D+grip when I worked for a newspaper.. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS was also part of my kit..

From what I remember your results are pretty much the same..


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
Myth-informed
17,862 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Joined Mar 2009
Issaquah, WA USA
Jun 15, 2010 11:08 as a reply to yogestee's post |  #11

I'm with Yogestee on this one; I don't see anything wrong with the lens. It looks like you shot at a slight angle to the wall, which put the flowers on the right slightly closer to you than the ones on the left. Notice that you can read the flower tags in the right box better than in the left one; at f/2.8 this angle would give you just enough of a change in relation to the focal plane that you'd see those differences, I think.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,860 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Jun 15, 2010 11:56 |  #12

yogestee wrote in post #10366024external link
Yes I have.. The 1D MkII was my issued camera along with a 20D+grip when I worked for a newspaper.. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS was also part of my kit..

From what I remember your results are pretty much the same..

From what I remember your results are pretty much the same..

From what I've read, the new MkII lens is supposed to be quite a bit sharper than the older non-IS (I had the non-IS and did find it to be a bit better than the MkI IS though). Most charts show it's corners to be almost as good as it's center. I can see that in the left side, but not in the right. I notice that when I shoot something near the ground, say on pavement, I can clearly see detail on the left side in the pavement in the focus area, but as it gets to the right, I can't find it at all. It almost seems like the line of focus always goes "upward" in the frame regardless of my angle (but it's hard to tell because the details get mushy). Thanks again for your input. It helps put things in perspective.

Snydremark wrote in post #10366056external link
I'm with Yogestee on this one; I don't see anything wrong with the lens. It looks like you shot at a slight angle to the wall, which put the flowers on the right slightly closer to you than the ones on the left. Notice that you can read the flower tags in the right box better than in the left one; at f/2.8 this angle would give you just enough of a change in relation to the focal plane that you'd see those differences, I think.

Oh? Really? See I thought the left side had sharper tags and flowers.
But I do agree it does look like I shot at a slight angle putting the right side closer to me, which is why I was confused by the results (that I saw anyway). I'm glad to hear somebody thinks the right side is clearer. :)


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,860 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Jun 15, 2010 12:01 |  #13

Here is something else that appears weird, but maybe it's normal. I don't know if I've seen this before, and did seem like the plane of focus was skewed.

This was taken wide open, F2.8, 120mm with the focus point on the moustache.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


When you look at the full res image, I can see in the middle of the frame, focus is on the YAMAHA on his arm, then seems to go up behind his moustache (closer to the sideburn) then out the back of his head. Does this seem right?

100%
http://img809.imagesha​ck.us/img809/4135/prov​4570.jpg (external link)


.

1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
ph2003
Member
96 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Jun 15, 2010 14:15 |  #14

i see that mens pic was taken with AI servo AF, maybe that make the focus off abit?
did u tried single shoot AF?

i had this similar problems when i 1st bought my 70-200f4 IS (was expecting too much for paying so many $$$ :) i know hows ur feeling :D)
after playing with it more and more, im getting used to it :cool:




LOG IN TO REPLY
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2009
Jun 15, 2010 14:38 as a reply to ph2003's post |  #15

I think you are looking wayyyy to hard for decentering on your lens. The wall shot looks fine and that would show decentering clearly. I found decentering in my refurb 17-55mm I first ordered and it was obvious in a wall shot. Here you can see it in a landscape. Look at the tree branches in the upper left and the bricks. All have VERY little detail and seem to "pull" to the corner. This stood out to me fairly easily and was confirmed in a brick wall test. I sent it back and the new one I bought was perfect. Your shots look fine.

Downscaled but not a crop:
http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com ...56231775_933472ac44​_o.jpgexternal link


Please visit my Flickrexternal link and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 7D, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II, Canon 580EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,958 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 One Side Sharper
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00135 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is J4T4lyfe
752 guests, 290 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016