I don't think my 70-200 IS is sharp....

Still remember what I posted above when getting the replacement.

Thanks Bluedog. What is the preferred image hosting service?

I use PBase but there is a membership fee each year. A good limited free service is www.flickr.com.

Where are you seeing this date code and how do you read it?

canonloader wrote in post #2221543
Where are you seeing this date code and how do you read it?

On "L" lens the date code in stamped on the very end the lens (camera end). In the date code: UT11- the "U" is the manufacturing plant, The "T" is 2006, and the 11 is November (11th month of year).

2nd position:

O = 2000
P = 2001
Q = 2002
R = 2003
S = 2004
T = 2005
U = 2006

Gerry

im agreeing with the original poster...i did some shot by shot comaprisons with my 70-200L IS and my 75-300 III and the cheap lens was sharper on every pic...with and w/out IS on a bright afternoon. i just checked my lens and it is UU0519

I just purchased this same lens from B&H. The date code on my lens is UT1114. Based on the previous post this decodes to November 2005 as well.

Mine seems plenty sharp.

David

my test result

http://www.pbase.com …u/image/6933451​6/original

70-200 IS is not superbly sharp at 200mm, the resolution is slightly better at 70mm. the optimal aperture peaks around 5.6 at 70mm and peaks around 8 at 200mm.

my shot at 70mm

http://www.pbase.com …u/image/6872454​7/original

http://www.pbase.com …u/image/6955817​5/original


and at 200mm

http://www.pbase.com …u/image/6838170​8/original

both of them are cropped and sharpened somewhat in photoshop. So don't judge by them only. I just want to give you some samples.

Sent it back
and yes you don;t need to turn off IS, the lense should "sense" that the camera is on tripod

col4bin wrote in post #2221418
No, I did not have a filter on the lens.

Any suggestions on how else to test the sharpness?

Were you using your lens hood? Sorry, that's the only other thing I can think of that would result in a degradation of IQ.

dzilk wrote in post #2227141
I just purchased this same lens from B&H. The date code on my lens is UT1114. Based on the previous post this decodes to November 2005 as well.

Mine seems plenty sharp.

David

:P My non-IS 70-200 is from April of this year, as is my 17-40. These date code dealies are cool.

Bob_A wrote in post #2227857
Were you using your lens hood? Sorry, that's the only other thing I can think of that would result in a degradation of IQ.

nope. there was no need for the lens hood in the test picture. I took the picture from my baclcony late in the day with the sun behind me and low in the sky.

I called B&H and explained the problem and have already sent the lens back. They are sending me out a new one and the person I spoke to on the phone assured me that this one will be brand new...never opened...as if he knew something about the first one sent to me.

col4bin wrote in post #2228640
nope. there was no need for the lens hood in the test picture. I took the picture from my baclcony late in the day with the sun behind me and low in the sky.

I called B&H and explained the problem and have already sent the lens back. They are sending me out a new one and the person I spoke to on the phone assured me that this one will be brand new...never opened...as if he knew something about the first one sent to me.

good going Frank. that lens is too expensive for you to not be fully satisfied.

ed rader

Hi Frank,

Wel, if you are not satisfied with the results... I guess you should return it. It doesn't matter what we say in here, it is your money, your lense and your satisfaction.

But just for the records...

1. I don't think the date code is an issue. When I bought my 70-200, it was almost 10 months old. I never thought it could've been a return from someone else.... and to be honest, as long as it looks like new... I wouldn't mind.

2. Testing for sharpness is a waste of time (IMHO). When I got that lense, I took a few shots and I thought they were not sharp. It was too much of a hassle to return it, so I kept it... I'm glad I did...

3. I was glad to keep it because I understood a few weeks back that the lense was perfect. It was me. I took off the UV filter and the pictures improved a bit, but the real turning point was the exposure and the shutter speed I was using (I don't have IS). I realized that the lense is capable of amazing shots when used right.

Now, many people test the lenses with black and white pieces of paper and seeing them at 100%. I rather take it out and take 100 or 200 pictures. If you don't like those pictures... then return the lense, but don't be surprised if you get another copy... and the pictures turn out similar or worse.

Lenses might have QA issues, we all make mistakes... but I find hard to believe that so many people in this forum have L lenses that are not sharp. If that many L lenses were not sharp, Canon would be in real trouble.

Return it if you don't like it... just be careful on blaming the lense when it could be another factor (in my case, it was the photographer the one that was not 'sharp')

Good luck!
Leo.

Imelendez,

I think you make a very valid point, I don't do focus tests or peep much, I just go on real world results and also factor in a bit of a learning curve for a new style of lens. I've never had a lens that needed to be returned/exchanged as of yet.

That being said, for a lens of this caliber it really does seem like there is something wrong with this lens as it's VERY not sharp (there's a thread in the forum titled "My First [L]ove" by a user who just got a used 70-200 2.8, now that's sharp). The only other thing would be serious user error but from the circumstances I doubt it, I think the lens is a dud and I'm glad the OP has sent it back for an exchange. He spent too much money to be dissatisfied or even have that doubt.