topic 70-200 2.8 III in EF & RF Lenses

70-200 2.8 III

antsy88 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:34:29 GMT

Well, I got my 70-200 2.8 III with great expectations... Did my first shoot with it...its headed back to Canon tomorrow.

Nothing is sharp at F9 at 200th of a second on a tripod with a cable release. My old first version is a heck of a lot sharper and Im really bummed out. $2000 and what did I get??? possibly my first reshoot.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

Waddizzle — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:43:56 GMT

@antsy88 wrote:
Well, I got my 70-200 2.8 III with great expectations... Did my first shoot with it...its headed back to Canon tomorrow.
Nothing is sharp at F9 at 200th of a second on a tripod with a cable release. My old first version is a heck of a lot sharper and Im really bummed out. $2000 and what did I get??? possibly my first reshoot.

Sorry to hear that. I bought the Mark II a couple of years ago from that big blue box store, and noticed the lens was not only soft, but it rattled when I moved the camera. I returned it for an exchange. I immediately noticed the new lens had a rubber grommet on the lens mount, for weather sealing, which my first copy lacked. The second one was razor sharp, too.

Is the problem I had the same as what you have now? I seriously doubt it. Yup, get your copy checked out.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

antsy88 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:48:38 GMT

My lens gives every indication it is perfect. When I shoot at almost minimum distance it seems fine. But today I was about 40 feet from a group of people, shot at F9 at 200th of a second, on a good tripod and had a cable release. Even when I manually focused I couldnt get it in focus. I thought maybe it was just a mistake with my eyes but when I looked at the shots they were the same softness as I saw on the back of the camera. BIG disapointment

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

ebiggs1 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:35:19 GMT

You need to send it to Canon for a look see. If for no other reason to satisfy your own mind. Whether or not anybody else tells you how great their copy is is irrelevant. Yours is what it is.

There is no difference between version II and III except for the color of the body and the new lens coating. I do not intend to undervalue the new coating in any way though. The lens coating is a fundamental and primary reason why lenses preform like they do. These very special coatings are expensive and they are difficult to apply.

Call Canon 1 (800) 652-2666

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

RobertTheFat — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:29:03 GMT

@antsy88 wrote:
Well, I got my 70-200 2.8 III with great expectations... Did my first shoot with it...its headed back to Canon tomorrow.
Nothing is sharp at F9 at 200th of a second on a tripod with a cable release. My old first version is a heck of a lot sharper and Im really bummed out. $2000 and what did I get??? possibly my first reshoot.

I once had a similar experience. Bought a new 7D and a 17-55mm f/2.8 and took them the next day to an important shoot - only to learn when I started editing that that camera/lens combination required 12 points of autofocus microadjustment. Fortunately, I was using two cameras and got enough good shots with the other one. I was very lucky, because a reshoot would have been impossible. The takeaway: NEVER use a new piece of equipment on a job without testing it first.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

antsy88 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:11:05 GMT

Roger that!

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

ebiggs1 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:57:36 GMT

"... that camera/lens combination required 12 points of autofocus microadjustment."

Keep in mind focus adjustment in the camera does not make a lens one bit sharper. Nada, not any.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

RobertTheFat — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:27:47 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"... that camera/lens combination required 12 points of autofocus microadjustment."

Keep in mind focus adjustment in the camera does not make a lens one bit sharper. Nada, not any.

Well, I'm not sure I claimed that it does. What I do claim is that AFMA (if needed) makes the picture sharper – at least the part that matters. If that's a distinction without a difference, so be it.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

ebiggs1 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:10:00 GMT

Yup, Robert I know you knew how it works but many others don't. They think it does even some members on this forum. They might chime in with false info.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

antsy88 — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:34:43 GMT

The lens is on its way to Canon and should be there tomorrow. Ill see what they say. Ive asked that if they cannot guarantee me that that lens is in perfect condition then I want a new lens. I will press this as far as I can. I have to have confidence in the equipment or Ill get rid of it no matter what and go back to a version2 lens.

Ive always gotten great fast service from Canon so Im not going to assume anything other than that this time.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

Waddizzle — Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:35:35 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
"... that camera/lens combination required 12 points of autofocus microadjustment."

Keep in mind focus adjustment in the camera does not make a lens one bit sharper. Nada, not any.
Well, I'm not sure I claimed that it does. What I do claim is that AFMA (if needed) makes the picture sharper – at least the part that matters. If that's a distinction without a difference, so be it.

It is very obvious that you didn’t claim that AFMA makes a lens sharper. The lens focuses, but the camera body is what controls the show.

Some people do not understand that the camera and lens work together as a focusing system. They are still stuck in the past, when lenses were manually focused, and the camera body made no difference how sharp a lens would be.

Re: 70-200 2.8 III

ebiggs1 — Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:12:35 GMT

"The lens is on its way to Canon and should be there tomorrow."

Your best answer. If you didn't, even if it were to perform OK, you would always wonder. Keep in mind a lens is as sharp as it will ever be when it is manufactured. Unless a physical alteration is made it is what it is.