| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS
Peter Gaby, Photographer
 |
Madison | WI | US | Posted: 1:27 PM on 02.05.06 |
->> Hey Gang: Just got this lens 2 nights ago, and used it for the first time shooting indoors tennis.
Lighting sucked, and I suspect that is the cause of the problems that I feel I had, but here goes the question anyways.
I don't feel that the images are tack sharp as I hoped they would.
I was shooting at 1600 - and I guess that is the problem.
anyone else notice that your images are not as tack sharp as expected at that ISO.
I did notice a little change when shooting non-action around 800.
I'll play around with it more during the day light hours here in the next week or so.
But just wanted to get some opinions from people that have used it longer then 2 days.
also, i'm sure it makes a differance, but I was using a 10D with it as well.
Thanks
Peter |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | United States | Posted: 1:45 PM on 02.05.06 |
->> Occasionally I take out all of my lenses and walk out to the side of my house and shoot the brick wall at all apertures to check the sharpness of all my lenses and cameras, that way I can rule them out when I see soft images.
At this point, I know the chips in my 2 Mark II's is sharp, tack sharp on stationary focusing, on AI Servo I'm not so sure.
Anyways, by doing this test I also know all the limitations of my lenses and I find the ones that need servicing.
I think you need to do further testing to see where the problem is, I just sent in my 70-200 IS because it wasn't sharp at 2.8 but it was at all other apertures.
Just my suggestion. |
|
Peter Gaby, Photographer
|
Madison | WI | US | Posted: 2:34 PM on 02.05.06 |
->> Hi Michael: Thanks for the suggestion.
I will work with that this week, and if all else fails, I'll send it into CPS
Peter |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 4:25 PM on 02.05.06 |
->> First of all, are you using IS while shooting action? It should be off when shooting unpredictable action with sudden movements.
Secondly, I'm not a big fan of the 70-200 @ 2.8 under the kind of conditions you outlined. I find to be softer than I'd prefer and the focus hit rate to be lower than I'd like. Sharpness does improve between f/4 and 5.6, but of course, that's irrelevant when you have to shoot at 2.8... The 135 f/2L is a nice alternative, though of course not as flexible as having a zoom. AF is very fast and responsive and image quality at f/2 is much better than the 70-200 @ 2.8.
There are probably a bunch of factors affecting the results. Slower than optimum shutter speed. AF inconsistencies due to lower light levels. Camera shake by the photographer trying to keep up with the movement of the player...
The bottom line though is that the situation was not close to ideal and you will have to accept that quality will be less than normal. Given the same circumstances and equipment, I doubt there would be significant variation in technical results from most other photographers covering such an event. |
|
Julian Jenkins, Photographer
|
Meridian | ID | USA | Posted: 5:48 PM on 02.05.06 |
| ->> As well the 1600 ISO is NOT as good as the newer line of cameras after the 10D, period. |
|
James Lang, Student/Intern
|
Blacksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 7:14 PM on 02.05.06 |
| ->> My 70-200 IS was soft at 200mm 2.8 with IS turned off, I sent mine back to canon and they repaired it, but I think that it's still soft. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 9:59 PM on 02.05.06 |
->> You didn't say what shutter speed and aperture you were able to get at 1600 ISO. Without that information we don't get a good feel for the ambient light level you were working in, and that will affect the camera's ability to focus quickly.
In low light any of the bodies will drop to a slower-focus speed because they're having a hard time finding the edges of the subject. The pro bodies have faster CPUs and better sensors, so they can react better, but there are still times they can't keep up. The consumer bodies are at a disadvantage in the same conditions because of the slower CPUs.
I have both the 70-200L f2.8 USM IS and the non-IS version. Both lenses are sharp and work well, but my 20D, which is not as good as my 1D, will have more problems with soft focus in low light using either lens.
If the light level was like the light in our arenas then that would be a big contributor to the problem you saw.
Take the lens and camera outside in daylight and try focusing on cars approaching you in traffic, and see if you can get sharp images. The closer to you they are, the harder the camera has to work, so you can use that as a good test of the combo.
Also that is a good way to practice acquiring and holding focus. See how fast you can focus on rear bumper stickers as cars pass by at 40-50 mph. Focusing accurately is a skill we can practice. Having that ability and knowing how the camera focuses will help your ability to get the shot when the light levels drop.
The lens can be adjusted if there is something wrong with its ability to focus, though I think odds are good it was the light level causing the problem. |
|
Peter Gaby, Photographer
|
Madison | WI | US | Posted: 11:03 PM on 02.05.06 |
->> Hey All: Thanks for the info
Greg: I'd have to look at the file info, but most of the time I was getting between 1/90 and 1/125 - sometime though, I would get 1/250th at 2.8
I'm really looking forward to using this lens this summer for racing.
Ron: I do have the 100 USM f2 lens, and that worked a little better under the lights.
I had forgotten it was a f2, and had it set for a while at 2.8
I will work with it the next week or so during the day and see how things work out.
I kinda figured the light was the major issue, but have heard from people over time about soft focus issues with this lens.
Thanks again all for the advice. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 7:46 PM on 02.08.06 |
| ->> I have the non-IS version, and thought it was reasonably sharp until I tried a 300 2.8 IS. Wow, the 300 blew the 70-200 away. The 70-200 is OK from 70-150mm, but at 200mm it's only acceptably sharp when you stop it down to f/4 or smaller. But, it never approaches the 300. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 02.08.06 |
->> Well, if you're getting somewhere between 1/80 and 1/125, then you are in some seriously low light IF the ISO is maxed out and the aperture was wide open (or close to it). It's one thing to deliberately use those settings when you're at 100-400 ISO, but another when you're straining to get 1/80 at 1600 or 3200 ISO.
At that sort of light level, the camera will not track moving subjects well, especially a 10D.
The f2.0 lens will help, because it's adding almost a stop of light, but still it's going to tax the autofocus to keep up. Even the Mark II bodies would have a hard time following fast action at that point and they have dual CPUs to handle the focusing task.
Strobes will stop the action, but if the camera isn't focused they won't help and there comes a point when you have to move in as close as you can to give the camera better outlines to work with, and maybe even give up trying for stopped action and sharp edges and call it "art".
If you are in that sort of light regularly, you might want to consider working with prime lenses. They are sharper and typically have more light gathering ability.
Or, you might want to have someone hold a flashlight for you. :-) |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 10:45 PM on 02.08.06 |
->> This doesn't address issues related to subject movement and slow shutter speeds...
I was just going through photos of frost covered trees made with the 70-200 IS on the Mark II N. Lots of small branches and other details in the shots. I wasn't all that impressed with the technical quality of the results as I was editing in Photo Mechanic... I always shoot raw+jpeg to have the larger jpeg for editing. Well, I opened one of the images in DPP (raw converter), and there appeared to be more detail present in the raw preview (sharpening off). I opened the camera produced jpeg (camera sharpening set at zero) in PS and applied smart sharpening of 400/0.4 (somewhat arbitrarily chosen setting)... then flipped between the unsharpened raw output and the sharpened jpeg. They were virtually identical. Then I applied the same sharpening to the raw conversion and whoa! More detail.
I still think the primes are nicer than the 70-200, but the zoom definitely has its uses. So my point: Shoot raw (or raw+jpeg) if you can. At least from the Mark II you'll get a sharper looking image from the raw file, but also the added flexibility of tweaking the color and tonality after the fact, which can also add to the impression of greater sharpness.
And recently I started shooting with in camera sharpening of 3 applied to the jpegs to get a better idea of how sharp the processed raw files should be. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|