Issues with the EF2.8L 70-200mm USM II lens

[lellyk]

Hi

I am an amateur however it is a serious hobby and I have been asked to photograph some weddings and decided to invest in this lens.

The results I am getting are shockingly bad.  I understand due to the size of the lens that I must use a reasonably quick shutter speed, however the photos are not sharp.

I have a 70-300 F4 lens which I have been using instead as the results are constantly clear and sharp using the same settings.  The expensive 2.8L gets left at home.  Does anyone know of issues with a particular batch of this lens?  The first one I got fell off my 6D (at a wedding, right at the vows!) and luckily the vendor replaced it, so it makes me wonder what on earth is going on.

Can anyone help with this?

Thanks

Lesley

[Waddizzle]

Post samples of the good and the bad.  Shots taken with one lens, then the same subject with the other lens. 

[ScottyP]

Did the photos from the first one look good, or are the pictures from both bad?  There is no way there would be two shockingly screwed-up 70-200's shipped in a row. If both worked badly for you it is not a problem with the lens. 

What camera?  

What shutter speed?  

Problem exists only only at wide apertures (f/2.8 to f/4), or also when stopped down to f/5.6 or higher?  The depth of field at wide apertures is very shallow, so most of the image won't be in focus; only the point the camera focuses on.  

Are you shooting single point AF or leaving them all active for the camera to choose from?  At f/2.8 you had better shoot with just the center AF point active, and then place that red point over the closest eyeball to you.  That one eyeball may be the only thing in sharp focus. 

[ebiggs1]

"Did the photos from the first one look good, or are the pictures from both bad?  There is no way there would be two shockingly screwed-up 70-200's shipped in a row. If both worked badly for you it is not a problem with the lens."

I agree with this totally.  Plus it it is nearly impossible to take "bad" pictures with this lens.  It is not a difficult lens to master.  Actually it is pretty forgiving.  Not trying to dis you but trying to help find the problem.

A sample photo will go along way to explain the issue.

You are a lucky individual if the retailer took back a lens that you dropped.  I have heard of folks that have had that happen to them although I can't for the life of me see how.   It's not like I haven't had the opportunity as I have had cameras in my hands for 8 or 10 hours a day at times.  Be it as it may, show us an example.

[lellyk]

Thanks folks. I'll have a look at the weekend and try to post examples and check my settings.

Lesley

[TCampbell]

I'm sure several of us can post examples of the lens' performance.  It's an outstanding lens.  It's THE single best 70-200 in the entire industry.

I don't have the "II"... I have the original version -- which is also an amazingly good lens.  The II is just a tiny bit better. 

I can think of numerous reasons why a good lens would end up with missed focus.  Certainly some example shots would be helpful.  

[ebiggs1]

Tim....?

"The II is just a tiny bit better."

Really,  that's your thoughts?

You need to try or rent one.  I bet you change your mind quickly.  I sold my version 1 as there is no way I would use it after using the 2.  I also sold the f4 model for the same reason.

Same story on the ef 24-70mm f2.8l version 2.  The version 1 is not even in the same zip code as the 2.

[TCampbell]

I can see the difference between the 24-70 I vs II... but not so much in the 70-200 I vs. II.

It occurs to me the IS picked up a performance improvement on the II (I think it's now rated to 4 stops and the old one is probably 3 stops).  The-Digital-Picture website claims it also got an improvement in handling lens flare, but I've never had a lens flare issue with my lens.  When I stare at the MTF comparisons, it really doesn't look like the optics got much of an improvement (although, again, The-Digital-Picture claims he sees a lot more of a difference then he expected to see.)

Here's a couple of samples (you can see these in more detail if you check the Flickr page where you can see it much larger size.)

This first image is actually quite a crop-in on the original shot.  But if you scan around the metal bits, and wood bits, you'll see tons of detail even if you really crop in.  

The Oiler by Tim Campbell, on Flickr

The above shot was, of course, using a higher aperture for mroe depth of field.  So here's a sample using a lower focal ratio (in this case it's f/4):

Cotswold Garden by Tim Campbell, on Flickr

You can (hopefully) see why I feel like my 70-200 version I copy isn't really lacking in the ability to produce sharp images.

The 24-70 is a different story.  I see the weaknesses in the original.  It's too bad they changed the lens to a normal zoom and jumped to an 82mm filter thread.  I really LIKED the reverse-zoom nature of the original because I had a much deeper lens hood which works a lot better on bright sunny days (and the original 24-70 had a problem with lens flare if the sunlight hit it -- and my copy suffers from this.  I really have to be careful about the sun with this lens.)  

(NOTE:  Not sure what happened in this post, but suddenly the link in the Canon forum editor that would normally allow me to upload or embed an image wasn't working.  I had to manually edit in some HTML to get these to work.  Hopefully it worked.)

[ebiggs1]

"You can (hopefully) see why I feel like my 70-200 version I copy isn't really lacking in the ability to produce sharp images."

Tim we both know I can't compare what I don't have.  Which would be the same image done with the 2 on the same camera.

However, I was able to do that with my own copies of each.  Yes, the 1 is a nice lens. No doubt.  The 2 just is, and more, better.  Not only in IQ but like you confess, its IS, too.  Not to mention a quicker AF.

I am fortunate enough to have all the major offerings from the best makers in this class.  The Canon 2 clearly wins, hands down.

I place the Tamron in second place.  Since the Nikon has focal length problems I consider it a no-go, period.  They gotta fix it.

From 70 to approx. 150mm it's pretty good.

I actually I do miss the old 24-70mm f2.8 (sold it) but the new one is so very much better.  Way more than just a "tiny" bit better.  Actually I thought my ef 28-70mm f2.8 was sharper than my 24-70mm f2.8 version 1.

Remember this is just my humble opinion form my own usage and experience.  It and 5 dollars will buy you a Starbucks.

[Waddizzle]

@Ernie

"I am fortunate enough to have all the major offerings from the best makers in this class.  The Canon 2 clearly wins, hands down.  I place the Tamron in second place.  Since the Nikon has focal length problems I consider it a no-go, period.  They gotta fix it.  From 70 to approx. 150mm it's pretty good."

I have been pondering on which 70-200mm to choose.  I have it down to one of three directions, in no particular order.

1.  Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM / Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

2.  Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM / Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Vi DC USD

3.  Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Choice #1 is the budget choice, because I'm no pro.  I like the f/4L IS because it is weather sealed, but is it worth nearly double the cost to me.  I'm thinking no.  Not really. If I go with the f/4, I might as well stick with the non-IS version.  The non-IS f/2.8 is comparably priced as the f/4 IS, so I would go with that, instead.  I don't see myself in harsh conditions because of my health.

Similarly, choice #2 is a budget version of #3.  I'm leaning towards Tamron over the Sigma because of weather sealing.  I assume that this is the Tamron that you're mentioning above, which is what piqued my interest.

Choice #3 is the lens I would really want to have, but I have to ask myself do I need it for IQ, or do I want for bling.  I am perfectly happy with the IQ I get from the 24-105 f/4L, but I ask myself is that because I've never seen what a really good lens can actually do.  Buying the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM is nearly 2/3 the cost, so I might as well take the plunge from the high board.

As of now, I'm leaning towards the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM because of the image quality I keep hearing about, and the images that I have seen.  But, is it really that big of a jump in IQ over the Tamron? 

I have the Sigma 150-500, but have noticed the OS seems to get into a tug-of-war at times with the AF?  Do either of the Sigma or Tamron lenses exhibit this trait?  The pair are actually sitting in third place on list of choices.  I like  the "big Siggy", but I do find myself using it most of the time with the OS turned off.

  I want a best buy for IQ, not necessarily the state-of-the-art.  But, I have reservations about the Tamron, though.  What do you think is the best buy at 70-200mm?