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

This was shot on a Sony a6500 crop body with a Sigma MC-11 adapter wide open.

This was shot wide open at f4 and this is a straight out of camera jpeg which was cropped by camera and probably had no sharpening applied.

I read a lot on this lens before I bought one about a month ago and mostly people were saying its a soft lens especially wide open.

I disagree.

Have you done a search on THIS forum for threads about this lens?

When it was released some time ago, the consensus was without a doubt that this was the sharpest zoom lens Canon had ever made. It bested the f/2.8 versions easily.

Sure, now there are newer designs, but I've never heard anyone say this was not a sharp lens. Where are you hearing that?

A lot of it was here but also independent reviews by average photographers.


Maybe they had bad copies.

Maybe it was just relative to the newer versions.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18629718
Maybe it was just relative to the newer versions.

Everywhere I read people said the newer 2.8 versions, even the f4l IS "is sharper than the non IS"

I have the non IS

PJmak wrote in post #18629729
Everywhere I read people said the newer 2.8 versions, even the f4l IS "is sharper than the non IS"

I have the non IS

Strange; all I’ve seen on that lens has been the opposite, as well. That the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is one of, if not the, sharpest of Canon’s tele, zooms.

Ultimately, yours appears just fine...go shoot and enjoy ߘ

Thats so weird, I havent read that once.

Care to share a link if u can find one?

My first L lens. I can't even imagine anyone saying it's not sharp. Internet rubbish if you ask me.

My first L lens as well. Never felt held back by it, IQ wise. One of canon's best bargains, in my opinion.

PJmak wrote in post #18629668
I read a lot on this lens before I bought one about a month ago and mostly people were saying its a soft lens especially wide open.

PJmak wrote in post #18629729
Everywhere I read people said the newer 2.8 versions, even the f4l IS "is sharper than the non IS"

I have the non IS

.
For many years I have read nothing but the opposite.

In fact, I even had the 70-200 f4 non-IS for several years, and one of the main reasons I bought it was because of all the stellar reviews about its sharpness.


.

RhodyPhotos wrote in post #18629857
My first L lens as well. Never felt held back by it, IQ wise. One of canon's best bargains, in my opinion.

That is what I have always seen, one of the best bargains in Canon lenses. I never saw any negative reviews, the IS version is twice as much but the image stabilization on it is really good.

Snydremark wrote in post #18629742
Strange; all I’ve seen on that lens has been the opposite, as well. That the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is one of, if not the, sharpest of Canon’s tele, zooms.

Ultimately, yours appears just fine...go shoot and enjoy ߘ

It's primarily been general comments in threads I've browsed about the IS vs non-IS, and I may be conflating the fact that those comparisons generally conclude that IS isn't considered 'necessary' across the board. However, I still do not see a preponderance of threads/reviews that say the non-IS isn't sharp. They may show up as "not as sharp as "x" version, or something"; but, that's like worrying that you bought an Audi R8 and worrying that people are saying that it's slower than a Bugatti Veyron.

https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/42163​78
https://kenrockwell.co​m …200mm-f28-is-ii.htm#table (note that while Sharpness is rated *slightly* lower here, distortion is rated slightly better; also, KR generally makes me want to claw off my skin, but he's more likely to err on the side of harsh when reviewing Canon gear, also...)
https://www.flickr.com …iscuss/72157628​744424659/
https://www.the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
https://community.usa.​canon.com …-IS-VS-non-IS/td-p/200562
http://www.amateurphot​ographer.co.uk …n-70-200-f4-non-is.82458/
https://www.imaging-resource.com …-70-200mm-f4l-usm/review/

When I was buying it I bought it with the thought that it would be good at 5.6 and above and I had settled for that.

To my surprise its performed very well throughout the zoom range and at every aperture so far.

PJmak wrote in post #18629880
When I was buying it I bought it with the thought that it would be good at 5.6 and above and I had settled for that.

To my surprise its performed very well throughout the zoom range and at every aperture so far.

Enjoy; there's no reason to believe that thing won't do what you need within its range. They SOOO small, too, compared to the f/2.8 versions

This lens has a reputation for being extremely sharp. I owned the IS version for about two years and it was awesome. The non-IS version is supposedly even better, and is an absolute bargain on the used market at US$400 or less.

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