70-200 f4 L IS, sharp on 200 but not on 70?

Hey Guys!

After a lot of saving up, selling a lens, and waiting for the delivery truck, I finally have my "new" to me lens! First thing I noticed is this thing is light. Unless the MKii is triple or quadruple(which I dont really know the numbers) the weight of this, then nobody should be complaining.

Ok, first thing I did was to try the IS, which is pretty darn scary, but from what I have read from here is its normal. So I try to forget about the noise and concentrate on testing the IS system. Its pretty good. So im ok now, next I tested is the IQ. I have a few samples to post, on these first pics that i got, the shutter speed is kinda low because i was also testing the IS. i will post more pics with higher shutter when i have the chance.

first pic is the 200mm shot with 100% crop on the bottom. how does it look?

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

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

second shot is the 70mm with the 100% crop on the bottom.

both of these was shot around 8-9 ft from the target. focus is on the "17-55".

how does this one look?

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

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

oh by the way, this was converted using DPP. only thing changed is WB to flash and sharpness to 5. then converted to jpgs with 2 quality.

It still is sharp.

That's like taking a photo with a 1000mm lens, and zooming to 100% then taking it with a 10mm lens and zooming 100%. You only have so many pixels to capture the info.

I would worry, looks like your copy is tack sharp!

Thanks! I needed to hear that! Then maybe i could post some shots from my 17-55 coz that im REALLY considering sending to canon for calibration.

Oh btw, i know i read here already, just wanted some confirmation again, but the IS sound, is it really loud? Compared to my 17-55 is kinda loud and sometimes jumpy when starting.

The 70-200 II is actually 3.28lb vs. 1.67lb... It is about double the weight. It would not seem like much, but it is hefty after a while. I find it much more bothersome in my bag versus on the lens though, for carrying around.

musashi wrote in post #11488095
Thanks! I needed to hear that! Then maybe i could post some shots from my 17-55 coz that im REALLY considering sending to canon for calibration.

musashi wrote in post #11488107
Oh btw, i know i read here already, just wanted some confirmation again, but the IS sound, is it really loud? Compared to my 17-55 is kinda loud and sometimes jumpy when starting.

That's ok, I was the same when I got my Tammy 17-50. But you only have a certain amount of pixels and you can't expect to drag that same information from the wide end as you do from the long end.

I can't comment on the IS sound - but it does sound familiar. I think it makes a wierd screech noise when it engages.

^^^ yeah i think its something like that. Kinda scary really when compared to my other lens. Its kinda like a clunking sound when it engages. Makes u think something is not properly lube in there. Lol.

There are some copies soft a 70mm, as seen here:

http://www.lenstip.com …f_4L_IS_USM_Sum​mary_.html

musashi wrote in post #11488001
second shot is the 70mm with the 100% crop on the bottom.

both of these was shot around 8-9 ft from the target. focus is on the "17-55".

how does this one look?

perhaps the focus was a trace off or a hint of lens shake due to low shutter

anyway this lens usually does do a bit better at 200mm (amazingly well) than at 70mm (quite well) but as I said it still does quite well even at 70mm

Probably a wrong time to check iq and is at the same time. Lol. I was just excited.

wombatHorror wrote in post #11488338
perhaps the focus was a trace off or a hint of lens shake due to low shutter

anyway this lens usually does do a bit better at 200mm (amazingly well) than at 70mm (quite well) but as I said it still does quite well even at 70mm

looks plenty sharp to me. remember at 200mm the 17-55 will fill up more of the frame, thus giving you more detail.

just start snapping pics!

i will, once the it stops raining here in socal! lol. i was so excited about this lens that i left it mounted instead of my 17-55, so when i take it out of the bag, its ready for playtime. anybody care to comment or to reaffirm that i have nothing to worry about the IS clunking sound?

Daedalus34r wrote in post #11490536
looks plenty sharp to me. remember at 200mm the 17-55 will fill up more of the frame, thus giving you more detail.

just start snapping pics!

Looks good man. I wouldn't worry to much about this, you've got one of the best lenses Canon makes. Two of them, actually, if you count the 17-55 2.8 IS...