Oy Vey. Is this Canon 70-200 f/4L IS Soft? 1

I usually find these type of posts funny but here I am asking if the used Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is soft. Here's the scoop. I had a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. It was fabulously sharp. Unfortunately, it wasn't a speed demon at focusing and I was having a hard time avoiding camera movement when using the lens, even at 1/500 of second. (There's another change I didn't expect as I reached age 50...I'm not nearly as steady as I used to be. I think I need to do some weight lifting!)

I found a good deal on a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS and everything seemed good so I went ahead and purchased it. It's smaller, lighter, faster focusing and has IS. All of which appealed to me. The previous owner said it was a good sharp lens. I took a couple quick test shots with it when it came in last Friday and everything seemed fine, except I wasn't blown away by the sharpness. Anyway, since it seemed okay, I hastily put my Tamron for sale here. It sold in a day and I shipped it off on Monday.

In the meantime, I began taking more test photos with the Canon and I just got the feeling it wasn't as sharp as the Tamron. Having read numerous reviews calling this lens the sharpest zoom in the world (these were prior to the introduction of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II,) I was surprised that this lens wasn't impressing me.

Today, I took it into a friend's studio and we did some testing. I still feel my Tamron was sharper (noticeably so) and I want to see if the shots I took with the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS look like they should. (I especially want opinions from those that own the lens.)

First, here is the sharpest shot we got today in the studio. It's shot on a 7D in JPG mode, with the picture style set to Neutral. In neutral, there should be no extra sharpening added. The camera was tripod-mounted and the lens was at f/5.6, with a shutter speed of 1/200.

Here is the full photo reduced for the web (straight out of the camera - no sharpening added in Photoshop):

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Now, here are some comparison shots between my Tamron and the Canon. They were not done at the same time because I sold the bloody Tamron so fast! (I know. I should have tested the Canon against it before selling the Tamron but I was anxious to recover some of my expenditure.)

Both of these shots were taken with my 7D in RAW mode so there is no sharpening whatsoever. They were both tripod mounted. The Tamron was at f/3.2 at 1/1000 of a second. The Canon was at f/5 @ 1/160 of a second. The Canon was shot horizontally while the Tamron was vertical. This is because the Tamron has a tripod mount collar and balances well in either orientation. Since the Canon does not have a tripod mount collar, I left it horizontal so the tripod would be better balanced.

Here's the Tamron (no post processing other than converting from RAW to JPG):

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

This might be a stupid question, but did you turn the IS off when it was on the tripod?

Here are the full resolution comparison images.

The Tamron on top. The Canon below it.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

annietex wrote in post #12867195
This might be a stupid question, but did you turn the IS off when it was on the tripod?

Actually, not a stupid question but yes I did turn IS off on all of these.

It sure seems unsharp to me. However, all DSLR images need post processing sharpening.

The 70-200mm f/L IS images should look like this:

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1244551055_​ox8GE-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1244840976_​GPhDr-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1244320241_​7kTXJ-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1245211231_​aEf5x-A-LB

One more set of comparison shots.

The first one was taken with the Tamron @ 188mm at f/6.3. It was shot in JPG with the Neutral picture style on my Canon 7D (straight out of the camera):

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here are the full resolution comparisons.

The Tamron followed by the Canon:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

RPCrowe wrote in post #12867243
It sure seems unsharp to me. However, all DSLR images need post processing sharpening.

The 70-200mm f/L IS images should look like this:

Very nice photos. Any chance you could post one of them without post processing sharpening so I can see what it looks like on another camera?

My problem is I don't have another Canon 70-200 f/4L IS to compare it with and I no longer have the Tamron.

The original owner has agreed to take it back (although she's not happy about it. She complained that it took me from Friday until today to let her know.) That will leave me without a long zoom but I don't want to keep this lens if it is softer than it should be.

The Tamron spoiled me and I had high expectations.

Any comments or samples for me to compare would be greatly appreciated.

I have to ship this back tomorrow if I want to send it back. She doesn't want me to hold on to it any longer.

Michael

Based on what I saw, your copy is not sharp.

I know you said that a tripod was used, but so long as you're shooting at relatively slow shutter speeds like 1/200s then it's a bit hard to be definitive as to whether it's a lens problem or some movement of the camera, as unlikely as it might seem. And at least one of your Tamron samples was at a much faster 1/1000s.

So yes, the shots do look a bit soft to me, but you need to remove all other variables to be sure it's the lens at fault.

While that is a valid point, I shot several photos with the camera in live view mode so the mirror was locked up and they didn't look any sharper. Then, there's the series of shots I took outdoors at faster shutter speeds and nothing looked particularly sharp.

For instance, this full resolution crop was from a shot done at 1/500 of second and was also tripod mounted (shot in JPG - straight out of the camera):

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

phreeky wrote in post #12867401
So yes, the shots do look a bit soft to me, but you need to remove all other variables to be sure it's the lens at fault.

I'd love to but the seller isn't giving me that option. She wants me to send it back ASAP or she won't accept a return.

Seems soft to me. it is a tack sharp lens. Send it back.

bobbyz wrote in post #12867503
Seems soft to me. it is a tack sharp lens. Send it back.

That's what I was thinking but I wanted to make sure that my expectations weren't too high. Unfortunately, this is going to cost me pretty good. I agreed to eat the shipping to me and the return shipping plus I have to find a replacement lens since I sold my Tamron. I really want another Canon 70-200 f/4L IS lenses but I wasn't planning on spending what they normally go for.