Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 21 May 2018 (Monday) 11:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why do people say this lens is not sharp?(70-200f4L)

 
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,913 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3358
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 21, 2018 19:31 |  #16

PJmak wrote in post #18629668 (external link)
Why do people say this lens is not sharp?

.
People don't say that.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PJmak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
685 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 302
Joined Feb 2009
     
May 22, 2018 11:33 |  #17

mcoren wrote in post #18629996 (external link)
My guess is that some people have bought this lens based on its reputation and price, but then tried to hand-hold it in less-than-optimal lighting conditions (indoors, cloudy days, twilight, etc.). When the pictures came out soft due to camera shake, they blamed the lens.

Mike


You know this is a good explanation.

To get the best from this lens, you either need a tripod or a very steady hand combined with at least 250th of a second shutter speed


Viewbug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canonuser123
Senior Member
Avatar
620 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 736
Joined Dec 2014
Location: Southern California
     
May 22, 2018 11:53 as a reply to  @ PJmak's post |  #18

Your Sony has I.B.I.S. Does it not, how well does it work with this lens?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,005 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 373
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
May 22, 2018 12:05 as a reply to  @ post 18629996 |  #19

non-IS version is not "better". I've owned them both.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PJmak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
685 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 302
Joined Feb 2009
     
May 22, 2018 12:06 |  #20

Canonuser123 wrote in post #18630415 (external link)
Your Sony has I.B.I.S. Does it not, how well does it work with this lens?


I haven't really been paying attention to that since I dont shoot in extreme conditions.

Ill keep an eye on it. It does have five axis IBIS


Viewbug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PJmak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
685 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 302
Joined Feb 2009
     
May 22, 2018 12:07 |  #21

ed rader wrote in post #18630427 (external link)
non-IS version is not "better". I've owned them both.


Not better as far as sharpness goes?


Viewbug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,445 posts
Gallery: 156 photos
Likes: 5999
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 22, 2018 14:04 |  #22

Ed's correct. The IS version is many years newer, and did improve on the image quality.

The lenses that this (and the later IS version) mopped the floor with were the first gen 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, both with and without IS. And of course any 3rd party offerings.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,527 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2314
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 23, 2018 19:41 |  #23

Anyone that says the 70-200 F/4L is not sharp does not know what hey are talking about

Ed is correct. The IS version appears to be a little sharper but the obvious advantage is than you can hand hold at 1/60 where as the non IS L version needs 1/160-200 to get a sharp file. I think this is what trips people up.

Personally, my old 70-200F4L is very sharp and I have no need to upgrade to the IS especially with the new sensors. Keep the shutter at 1/200 Minimum and your golden


BTW...they are going to upgrade the IS version....wonder how much sharper that will be. You might have to put a soft focus filter on so you dont cut yourself looking at pics  :p


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,723 posts
Gallery: 68 photos
Likes: 621
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
May 23, 2018 22:37 |  #24

It will be as soft as a kitten when the new 70-200 f4 IS comes out. Same with all the f2.8 vII's


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Exocet ­ 98
Member
Avatar
104 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 24, 2018 16:14 |  #25

I bought the 70 200 F4 for use on a XSI in 2008. Best lens I owned back in the day. Light weight with great subject background seperation. I moved up to a 70 200 F2.8L IS on a 5d ll. I miss the weight advantage of the F4. Sometimes simple is better.


5D mk II/BG-E6, 70mm 200 F/2.8 L IS, "Shorty" 40mm. 30mm Sigma Art.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,561 posts
Gallery: 100 photos
Likes: 3266
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 25, 2018 06:54 as a reply to  @ PJmak's post |  #26

If anyone said that any EF 70-200 was not sharp, at least on POTN, they would have been corrected, repeatedly, thoroughly and compared to other forums, politely.

It has been well established (as it has in this thread now) that the 70-200 f4 IS was the sharpest of the 70-200s when it was released. This in no way makes the non IS f4 version soft, or any other Canon 70-200 soft, just that Canon has been improving their designs and or manufacturing as far as sharpness for the 70-200s and most other lenses.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 82
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Post edited 10 months ago by amfoto1. (3 edits in all)
     
May 25, 2018 15:19 |  #27

I don't know where you got the info that either of the Canon 70-200mm f/4s are "soft". Whoever is writing or saying that simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

The two Canon 70-200/4 (IS and non-IS versions) and the 70-200/2.8 IS II are sharp enough to make your eyes bleed! They all three use fluorite, among other things, to achieve superb sharpness. You'll find fluorite in a lot of Canon telephotos. But even though the oldest Canon 70-200/2,8 non-IS and the original IS version don't use it, they both still manage to be pretty darned sharp.

The non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is the oldest design (1995) and has the weakest IQ of the five models they've offered.... but pretty darned good and is still in production.
70-200 f/4 non-IS was the sharpest lens of the range when it was introduced (1999). It's still in production and still one of the best.
70-200mm f/2.8 IS set a whole new standard, nearly as sharp as the f/4 non-IS, but 2 to 3 stop image stabilized and nicer background blur. (2001, discontinued).
70-200mm f/4 IS has the superb IQ of the earlier non-IS model PLUS newer 2 to 4 stop IS. (2006)
70-200mm f/2.8 IS "II" upped the bar even more, first of the f/2.8s to use fluorite, considered the best made by anyone when it intro'd in 2010.
Rumors are that a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS "III" will be announced sometime this year. We'll have to wait and see.

It's possible the "non-IS" they were referring to as "soft" was the earliest f/2.8 version, which... even though it's quite good... isn't as sharp as the later lenses, especially those using fluorite.

FYI.... Canon has used fluorite extensively for three or four decades. They pioneered growing artificial crystals, because naturally occurring ones large enough for lens elements are rare. Canon also developed new ways of fashioning fluorite into lens elements, because it's fragile and difficult to work with. Both these helped them be able to offer lenses using flourite at lower prices than other manufacturers.

Nikon finally incorporated fluorite into many of their teles last year.... and significantly increased their prices! For example, compare the $2800 price tag of their excellent Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G "FL" VR with the very good non-FL version Nikkor 70-200/2.8 that preceded it that sold for about $2000.... Or with the $1900 price of the equally good Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II (with fluorite, too). The $2800 70-200 is the cheapest Nikkor with fluorite, too. Canon has around a dozen lenses using it that are less expensive, the least expensive of all being the non-IS version of the 70-200/4 at $600.

If money is no object, there was even a limited edition "100th Anniversary" version of the Nikkor 70-200mm FL.... for $4000! Comes with a display of the lens elements and groups. I think it's sold out, but still might find a copy somewhere if you have a wad of money burning a hole in your wallet!

No other manufacturers I'm aware of are using fluorite right now. But most lens manufacturers have experimented and produced a few models with it, over the years.

Supposedly Canon was rejected from use in space by NASA because of fluorite in some lenses. There were concerns it wouldn't hold up to the rigors of rocket launches. NASA mostly used Hassleblad and Nikon cameras.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcoren
Senior Member
Avatar
624 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 303
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
     
May 25, 2018 18:00 |  #28

Very nice summary, Alan. Just one comment.

amfoto1 wrote in post #18632591 (external link)
The non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is the oldest design (1995) and has the weakest IQ of the five models they've offered.... but pretty darned good and is still in production.

The 1995 70-200 f/2.8 was the first with a USM motor and the first white one. Before that, there was a black 80-200 f/2.8L that was released in 1989. Commonly referred to recently as the "magic drain pipe", it didn't have a fast focus motor but its IQ was such that it is still highly regarded today.

See here: http://global.canon …museum/product/​ef285.html (external link)

Mike


Canon EOS 7D Mark II, EOS M5, and EOS 100 (film SLR)
A bunch of Canon lenses and a couple of Sigmas
A backpack, a bicycle, and a pair of hiking boots

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kermit4u
Senior Member
Avatar
793 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 110
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Hartsville, SC
     
Jun 06, 2018 19:32 |  #29

This is the lens that canon uses to get photographers hooked on L lenses , it is quite sharp, a heck of a deal at the price and it will keep you going back to your dealer for more and more L (higher price) gear.

ignore the troll


7Dmkii gripped|5DC gripped|7Dmkii gripped|Canonet QL17 Giii|too many yet not enough lenses https://www.jeffowenph​otography.com/ (external link)
https://www.instagram.​com/jeffowenphotograph​y/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LastX
Member
33 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Northeast
     
Jun 07, 2018 08:56 |  #30

This F4L lens is very sharp even in low light if you use proper technique.
:-)




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

2,785 views & 15 likes for this thread
Why do people say this lens is not sharp?(70-200f4L)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is nickcavill
757 guests, 277 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.