# Is there something wrong with my Canon 70-200?



## FidelCastrovich (Nov 7, 2010)

Hello all,

Please take a look at this picture and try to tell me if my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is less sharp than it should be.







I 




I keep thinking that there's something wrong, but I'm not sure how to test this. I don't encounter this in my day to day work, because I don't shoot at these settings or from these distances very often, but whenever I happen to shoot soccer, I just go nuts at the utter lack of sharpness.

I should note that the lens was taken to a Canon authorized lab here and all they said was that it was very dusty inside and that after cleaning it should be much better. Well, it isn't.

So, is this the sharpness level I should expect or not?

Shot with a 7D, at 190mm, ISO 3200, f2.8

Thanks a lot,
Emil


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 7, 2010)

I have this lens and it sure does not look like that. But I don't shoot at ISO 3200 either. Have you shot at just a very low ISO, like 100 to compare? How did that come out? Can you share one at that setting?


----------



## table1349 (Nov 7, 2010)

EXIF IFD0

    * Camera Make  {0x010F} = Canon
    * Camera Model  {0x0110} = Canon EOS 7D
    * X-Resolution  {0x011A} = 72/1 ===> 72
    * Y-Resolution  {0x011B} = 72/1 ===> 72
    * X/Y-Resolution Unit  {0x0128} = inch (2)
    * Last Modified Date/Time  {0x0132} = 2010:11:07 11:39:38EXIF 

Sub IFD

    * Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed)  {0x829A} = 1/1000 second ===> 0.001 second
    * Lens F-Number / F-Stop  {0x829D} = 28/10 ===> /2.8
    * Exposure Program  {0x8822} = manual control (1)
    * ISO Speed Ratings  {0x8827} = 3200
    * Unknown tag, Tagnum 0x8830  {0x8830} = data ===> 0
    * EXIF Version  {0x9000} = 0221
    * Original Date/Time  {0x9003} = 2010:11:05 19:35:42
    * Digitization Date/Time  {0x9004} = 2010:11:05 19:35:42
    * Shutter Speed Value (APEX)  {0x9201} = 9965784/1000000
      Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/1000 second
    * Aperture Value (APEX)  {0x9202} = 2970854/1000000
      Aperture = /2.8
    * Exposure Bias (EV)  {0x9204} = 0/1 ===> 0
    * Max Aperture Value (APEX)  {0x9205} = 3/1 ===> 3
      Max Aperture = /2.83
    * Distance to Subject  {0x9206} = 368/10 m
    * Metering Mode  {0x9207} = pattern / multi-segment (5)
    * Flash  {0x9209} = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
    * Focal Length  {0x920A} = 190/1 mm ===> 190 mm
    * Original Subsecond Time  {0x9291} = 12
    * Digitized Subsecond Time  {0x9292} = 12
    * Focal Plane X-Resolution  {0xA20E} = 5184000/907 ===> 5715.55
    * Focal Plane Y-Resolution  {0xA20F} = 3456000/595 ===> 5808.4
    * Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit  {0xA210} = inch (2)
    * Custom Rendered  {0xA401} = normal process (0)
    * Exposure Mode  {0xA402} = manual exposure (1)
    * White Balance  {0xA403} = auto (0)
    * Scene Capture Type  {0xA406} = standard (0)
    * Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa431  {0xA431} = data ===> 380312275
    * Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa432  {0xA432} = data ===> 70/1,200/1,0/0,0/0
    * Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa434  {0xA434} = data ===> EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2010)

Shooting wide open (f2.8) and at a high ISO is going to affect your image quality. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L was always a little softer wide open than it was stopped down to say f4 - however it still produces a good level of image quality. 

The real killer is your high ISO plus a 100% crop from a larger MP camera body like the 7D is going to look very different to a 100% crop from lower MP camera bodies because in effect you're looking at a larger magnification of the shot at the 100% because of all the extra MP present. (I might have explained that poorly). 

In short its a limitation of shooting high ISOs when working in dimmer lighting conditions. A refinement of your sharpening and noise reduction processes might allow you to get a bit more quality out of your shots for printing and internet display and one should always remember that whilst attaining the best possible quality is important - we judge that point on the quality at the time of output. So to print or to the net rather than soley at 100% crop level (though it does provide a good benchmark point for us to work from).


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 7, 2010)

Your looking at a 100% crop with the lens used at a high ISO, wide aperture and crap lighting.  If you expected tack sharp images in these sorts of situations, your sorely mistaken.

When looking at the non cropped version though, with some careful processing, thats a totally usable image from a quality standpoint.

Shoot in some good light with an ISO under 800 and bump your aperture up to about the F4-5.6 range and watch that lens shine!


----------



## FidelCastrovich (Nov 7, 2010)

Thanks for all your replies.

I was actually asking about the quality at the given settings, because that's where it hurts the most. Of course, shooting from 20ft at ISO 400 would look different, but I'm interesting in these extreme circumstances.

I haven't shot soccer in a long while, and shooting the coach who was pretty much  static and not getting one shot that I could call sharp was really frustrating.  But maybe I'm just expecting too much for such an aggressive crop. 

I guess that's all the excuse I need to get a 300mm f2.8


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2010)

It looks about right for a 1.6x, tiny-pixel sensor like the 7D has. At 100% you can see how much noise has been suppressed in the smooth, background areas of the frame. By current (2010), top-level standards, that's not that great of a performance for only ISO 3,200...but by historical standards, it's pretty good. For a crop-body camera, it's pretty good. Everything is relative, but it looks to me like the lens is doing about as well as the sensor is at 3,200 under a tough artificial low-light situation. Your shutter speed is 1/1000 second, and his face is smack-dab in the very center of the lens's field of view where lens performance is at its highest.


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2010)

If you want to pull more out then yes you'll want to reach for a better lens and also camera body with noise performance. On the body front unless you want for a 5DM2 (which has far inferior AF than the 7D) which is also fullframe you're left with the 1.3crop 1DMIV.

On the lens front a 300mm f2.8 IS L would certainly give you more quality to play with and the new M2 versions even more on top of that. In the 70-200mm range you could pull more out of that area with either a straight 200mm prime or the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 7, 2010)

FidelCastrovich said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Please take a look at this picture and try to tell me if my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is less sharp than it should be.





Overread said:


> If you want to pull more out then yes you'll want to reach for a better lens



HUH??  :raisedbrow:


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with his lens, but that if he wants to get better results in those conditions he'll have to use "better" tools.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 7, 2010)

FidelCastrovich said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Please take a look at this picture and try to tell me if my *Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS* is less sharp than it should be.





Overread said:


> If you want to pull more out then yes you'll want to reach for a better lens



HUH??  :raisedbrow:

As far as zooms go, the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is pretty much cream of the crop.  Yes, a long, fast prime would have been better...but really, not much given the lighting conditions and camera settings.


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2010)

70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 is the cream of the crop at present for canon  
But I'm still not disagreeing with you - just saying that under those conditions I agree with the OP that the only way to get a meaningful better result is to use better gear.


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 7, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> HUH??  :raisedbrow:
> 
> As far as zooms go, the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is pretty much cream of the crop.



 Hell no. At 200mm and f/2.8 the 70-200 IS II is already sharper than the old one at f/8.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II - APS-C Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis
_
"It's probably not necessary to comment on the charts below - the Canon lens is simply outstanding especially regarding the uniformity of the results throughout the range and across the image frame. __ Field curvature is basically non-existent" _


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

_"In the lab the lens showed a very good (f/2.8) to excellent performance at 70mm and 135mm However, at 200mm the resolution figures are not all that impressive for such a  high-priced product. The figures are generally still very good here but frankly you can have a better performance out there. Regarding the fact that the lens has been calibrated it is viable to state that the lens is not any better than  that. Regarding the quality figures at 200mm it does not seem to be advisable to use this lens with converters without hefty performance penalties."

_


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 7, 2010)

I love how Canon releases a lens or body update to an already fantastic piece of gear and suddenly the previous version completely sucks... 

Real world shooting will trump lab tests every time...  I've done a bit of shooting with both the MKi(currently own) and MKii(rented a couple times) and I can firmly say that it wouldn't have helped much, if any, in this situation given the shooting conditions and body at hand.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 7, 2010)

Your results seem about on par with what to expect out of that combo. I have the 2.8 IS II and get similar results under similar conditions. The mkI lens is going to be a bit softer wide open though, but this is just what you're going to get shooting at ISO 3200 with a crop camera. Granted it's about as good as you can get out of a 1.6 crop, it's still not going to be nearly as good as a 1.3x 1D or full frame 5D/1Ds. 

Here's an example I shot with the mkII lens and a 100% crop:











Now, if you were printing this on the cover of a magazine, it's not going to be up to snuff. But I had the cropped image above printed as an 8x10 from mpix that came out quite nicely.


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 7, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> I love how Canon releases a lens or body update to an already fantastic piece of gear and suddenly the previous version *completely sucks*...



Your words, not mine. Of course it doesn't "suck." I wouldn't call it soft, either. The new one is just much sharper at the tele end. As is the 70-200 f/4 IS. 





> Real world shooting will trump lab tests every time...  I've done a bit  of shooting with both the MKi(currently own) and MKii(rented a couple  times) and I can firmly say that it wouldn't have helped much, if any,  in this situation given the shooting conditions and body at hand.



I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 7, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.


I wouldn't exactly say that. It can't hold a candle to a full frame or 1.3, but I would hardly call it's ISO performance "not that great." Especially considering it out-performs (or at worst, is equal to) other crop sensors that have lower pixel density and larger sensor sizes. It's at the top of its class, even if that entire class sits well below the full frames.

</shameless defense>


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> FidelCastrovich said:
> 
> 
> > Hello all,
> ...


The 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS-USM model that the OP has is NOT that good of a performer at the longer focal lengths...it's simply NOT that good at resolving power on APS-C sensors...the lens is good, but not nearly good **enough** for an 18MP sensor...that's why Canon has a brand new Mark II version of the lens...the original design dates back to probably 1997, original production somewhere around 1998, if my memory serves me correctly.

Take a look here: even on an 8 MP sensor, this lens at f/2.8 is wayyyyyy down there in resolving figures at the longer end....it is easily bettered by many prime lenses, or newer zoom designs...look at the 200mm line pairs figures at f/2.8....extremely weak...and that is from a Canon-calibrated lens...after the first lens was so poor they got another lens and re-tested, and then sent the lens to Canon for calibration, and re-tested...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.
> ...



Uh, SORRY, but no, it's not at the top of its class...and just as an aside, the new Pentax K 5 has the TOP crop-frame sensor...the 7D is not as good as the upcoming Nikon D7000, and the new Pentax, well it is the current champion of sensor performance.

I hate to burst your bubble with facts Matt...but

The Online Photographer: The New Number One

DxOMark - Pentax K-5


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


>



Is the cartoon-like yellow posterized color on the jersey's numbers the way the image actually looks? Is that the way the camera is actually rendering the numbers? Or is that some type of byproduct of clipping? Or re-sizing on the screen capture?


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 7, 2010)

Oh god...put on your rain coats.  The gear whores found the thread...

Its ALL downhill from here...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> FidelCastrovich said:
> 
> 
> > Hello all,
> ...




Cream of the crop? Or cream of the crap??? As overread pointed out so diplomatically, a "better tool" to use his words, like a NEW, modern 70-200 Mark II, would be a better performing lens.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Pretty weak performance at 200mm. Even the Canon fanboys doing the test were surprised at how poorly the lens did when tested rigorously...


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 7, 2010)

Derrel said:


> JerrfyLube said:
> 
> 
> > FidelCastrovich said:
> ...



:lmao:

You seriously need to stop believing everything you read on the internet...


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> Oh god...put on your rain coats.  The gear whores found the thread...
> 
> Its ALL downhill from here...



There's nothing wrong with the fact that a better overall tool is going to yield a superior result at a purely technical level. The same is true of almost any area of craft/creation - better tools can give better performance and/or allow an easier overall working environment for the user. 


Furthermore we have to remember that its not just a technical level that we work in - we also have content and what has been created to consider. Thus even with "lesser" tools great works can be created. Furthermore just because there is a new "pro" tool does not mean that the former "pro" tool is no longer fit for the job at hand. It might be a as good as the newer, but chances are (in most cases) it can still do a very good job - esp in an area like photography where often the creativity and content of the capture is put on a higher level of important to the technical attributes.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> I love how Canon releases a lens or body update to an already fantastic piece of gear and suddenly the previous version completely sucks...
> 
> Real world shooting will trump lab tests every time...  I've done a bit of shooting with both the MKi(currently own) and MKii(rented a couple times) and I can firmly say that it wouldn't have helped much, if any, in this situation given the shooting conditions and body at hand.



Yeah...the new lens is significantly better than the old one. Over the past decade, anon has figured out how to make better optics. Nikon's new 70-200 VR-II model, like the Canon Mark II model, is also MUCH better than the lens it replaces.

I happen to own a Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM, just like the OP does...it's nowhere near as sharp as say the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR...and the 70-200 is at its sharpest at the bottom end of its zoom range. I thought everybody knew that...


----------



## ironsidephoto (Nov 7, 2010)

I dont think the lens is what's causing it to be soft, but more so the camera. What level of in-camera high ISO noise reduction settings do you have set? The camera might be softening it via noise reduction before it even gets to your computer.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > MrLogic said:
> ...


I think someone missed the point of that comment more than Michael Bay missed the point of Pearl Harbor.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 8, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> I think someone missed the point of that comment more than Michael Bay missed the point of Pearl Harbor.



Uhh yup... :lmao:


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 8, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.
> ...



You probably meant to say that it has better high ISO performance than its direct competitor, the Nikon D300s, correct? Why, yes, the 7D is somewhat better in that regard.

But it certainly *looks like* the latest generation of Sony-made (16MP) APS-C sensors will vastly outperform it.


----------



## memento (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I happen to own a Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM, just like the OP does...it's nowhere near as sharp as say the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR...i thought everybody knew that..


 
so now we're comparing Canon to Nikon and primes to zooms? i thought everybody knew that primes are sharper than zooms???



OP - you have found the limits of your CAMERA.
now you see why pro's have $6,000 bodies...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt you. The 7D's high ISO performance is not that great, so there's only so much you can do.
> ...



Sorry Matty, but the BEST APS-C sensor is found in the Pentax K5, with an overall score of 82. Your beloved Canon 7D scores a pathetic 66. Yes, you read that right! YES, the BEST APS-C sensor is found in a Pentax. A camera that has an almost INCREDIBLE ability to recover from under-exposures as great as 10 f/stops, meaning an ISO 80 image can be shot at ISO 51,500, or ten f/stops,and with the right RAW converter, the image can be rescued.

On something as simple as a full three-stop underexposure, the new Pentax's sensor performance is simply incredible! A nearly-black image can be opened and quickly,and easily brought righty back to life.

I'm sorry Matt, but no, the 7D's sensor is nowhere even CLOSE to being state of the art in an APS-C, high-density sensor...the Pentax K5's score of 82 kicks the 7D's ass... 82 and 66 are world's apart.

The new Pentax sensor, made by Sony by the way, has an in-camera dynamic range that exceeds that of the Nikon D3x, which had been the absolute, total, overall leader in DR. The incredible dynamic range the new Sony 16.8 MP sensor has puts that in the 7D to shame...

I hate to bring facts into a discussion with a Canon fan of such extreme prominence, but seriously, no, I do not mean that the 7D is close to the Nikon D300s performance, as somebody attempted to say--my point was that the 7D's sensor performance is nowhere NEAR the top of the APS-C, high-density category, as cfcontusionPM stated in his post above...it is a nice body, with nice sub-systems, but its overall image quality, especially at higher ISO's, and its color depth, and its dynamic range,and its noise suppression characteristics are now bettered,significantly, by newer cameras.

Wanna SEE some real examples?
PENTAX though, takes the crown with its new K 5 and its sensor...the sensor and the electronics in the new Pentax are simply incredible. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/dethrone.html

K5 Low ISO Noise ----- Not! - PentaxForums.com

How to recover a 10 stop underexposed K-5 image. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The new Pentax can easily recover from almost-black underexposures!!!! The read electronics on the new Pentax must be simply incredible!!!


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Sorry Matty, but the BEST APS-C sensor is found in the Pentax K5, with an overall score of 82. Your beloved Canon 7D scores a pathetic 66. Yes, you read that right! YES, the BEST APS-C sensor is found in a Pentax. A camera that has an almost INCREDIBLE ability to recover from under-exposures as great as 10 f/stops, meaning an ISO 80 image can be shot at ISO 51,500, or ten f/stops,and with the right RAW converter, the image can be rescued.
> 
> On something as simple as a full three-stop underexposure, the new Pentax's sensor performance is simply incredible! A nearly-black image can be opened and quickly,and easily brought righty back to life.
> 
> ...



 Not touching that cluster with a 10 foot pole...

Im done with this thread....unsubscribed.


----------



## Overread (Nov 8, 2010)

I find so many of these DSLR scores ultimatly pointless to read. The pace of advance means that the next upper end camera body on the market is always performing better than the previous ones so the boundaries are always changing. A highscoring DSLR from 5 years ago (which is honestly not all that long) is now a lowscoring nothing compared to the new ones. 
Lenses are a little better as they at least advance a little slower 


That said the new pentax does appear to be pushing some new boundaries with its dynamic range! It will be interested to see how it deals with overexposure and also how Pentax market it - sadly whilst the new tech might be highly impressive unless Pentax really pull their socks up they just won't make a big impression on the market. That said it might at least push Canon and Nikon to use similar tech.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> words


Did you wonder why I made my "missing the point" comment in the previous page? Because you still seem to be on a completely different tangent. I didn't think I would have had to spell it out for you, but since you keep assuming I'm some blind Canon fanboy, I guess I have to:

Let's break this down step by step:

- The original poster complained about softness in the image, making the assumption that the fault was with the lens. It's stated to be shot at 190mm, at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 with a 70-200 2.8 IS mkI on a 7D.
- Many people mentioned that the 2.8 IS mkI is relatively soft at the long end; especially at 2.8 (which is true)
- It was also mentioned that ISO 3200 plays a big role in the lack of sharpness (in addition to the poor lighting conditions, distance to subject, and viewing it at 100% on a computer screen)
- It's determined that the camera and conditions are more the limiting factors, rather than the lens.
- I try to illustrate that point by showing that the mkII is not much better in similar conditions.
- Using the common knowledge that the 7D is highly regarded by reviewers as one of the best APS-C cameras available (Well I guess until this Pentax that I'd never heard of was released a month ago...), I then say straight up that you're not going to get much better results without going to a 1.3 or full frame camera. 
- The whole point being that the limit on quality is the APS-C sensor more than anything else; something you preach religiously at every opportunity. I guess it's just unbearable that you agree with me on anything, even if it's you're own position!

I suppose the K5 is a great camera. The links you provided didn't show any high ISO tests (odd...) but some quick googling showed me that it looks pretty good! It definitely draws noise a lot more pleasantly than my 7D at 6400. However, that's still more or less irrelevant to this thread, especially considering that the original poster seems already heavily invested into a Canon gear set. So unless you are somehow suggesting that he drop all his Canon gear and switch to Pentax, the K5 comment should have come and gone in a brief asterisk, not a tangential wall of text. Thanks for making these forums interesting, Derrel. :thumbup:


----------



## gsgary (Nov 8, 2010)

The Pentax may be good at high ISO but can it focus and track an F1 or Motogp bike at 200mph


----------



## Montana (Nov 8, 2010)

And another thread derailed to a pissing match...........


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 8, 2010)

Some people just don't know how to stay on topic. :thumbup:


----------

