# what is the issue here!!!!



## enerlevel (Oct 30, 2012)

hello guys...  i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....    
the nikon gear which i used to use was
NIKON D800
NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8 G
NIKKOR 70-200 F2.8 VR II


i changed it for something similar from canon 
CANON 5D MARK III
CANON 24-70 F2.8 L V I
CANON 70-200 F2.8 L IS V I
CANON 85 F1.2 L


for some reason , i am getting very soft images as compared to the nikon counterpart.  for example ,  @ 200mm f2.8 , the image is very soft compared to the nikon and  @ 70 f2.8 , the image quality is not at all comparable to the NIKKOR.   
is this because of the lens or the camera itself?   are the VERSION I  worse than the nikon ? or is it that the D800 has better sharpness then Mark III Raw files?  
i could invest in the V 2  versions but from what i saw today at a local store, the 24-70 V2 was still very very soft @ 70mm f2.8 ... it could be a bad copy of the lens i am not sure...


----------



## Mully (Oct 30, 2012)

So just what is your question?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 30, 2012)

You didnt think to check this stuff before you dropped all this coin? Just saying. Must be nice. 

Ive seen awesome results from both so I dont know what to tell you. maybe some pic examples?


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 30, 2012)

I would take your 85 and shoot a pic at f4 with something that has a lot of detail in the middle of the image. It should be so sharp it will cut your eyes if you stare too long. If not then you have another issue going on here. The version II of the 70-200 is supposed to be a huge improvement over the ver I. I have the II and it is awesome. I have also shot some really sharp pics with the 24-70 v1 so I'm not sure what's going on with your 5D3. Like DiskoJoe said, do you have example pics?


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 30, 2012)

dorian7 said:


> I would take your 85 and shoot a pic at f4 with something that has a lot of detail in the middle of the image. It should be so sharp it will cut your eyes if you stare too long. If not then you have another issue going on here. The version II of the 70-200 is supposed to be a huge improvement over the ver I. I have the II and it is awesome. I have also shot some really sharp pics with the 24-70 v1 so I'm not sure what's going on with your 5D3. Like DiskoJoe said, do you have example pics?




thanks for the reply guys,  

yea all the lens i have when stopped to F4 becomes very very sharp. only at f2.8 they seem to under perform. i will try to put some pics 
and the question was that are the V 2 of 70-200 and 24-70 solve the sharpness issues or is it something to do with the camera model (5d mark III)  itself?  As i remember the Mark II pics were pretty soft with viewed at 100% ... and alot of them actually suggested to shoot at 12 Mp. in order to get getter sharpenss


----------



## Overread (Oct 30, 2012)

Few things:

1) The 70-200mm f2.8 MII makes a noticeable improvement over the MI version. Basically the Canon and Nikon MII/VRII are comparable as are the MI/VRI. These lenses both gained a lot in their upgrade to the II version, esp wide open at the long end (which is basically a zoom lenses weakest point. 
The MI is certainly a very good lens with many years of pro work behind it, the MII is, however, better.


2) If you compare a 100% crop from a smaller MP camera against one with a higher MP the one with the higher MP count will look softer. This is because the higher MP rating means that, when you view it at 100% you are actually viewing a much larger image than with a lower MP count. (you can see this easily just by comparing the width and height number of pixels against each other). As a result many find that they are more comfortable using a lower % magnification with some higher MP camera bodies - myself with a 7D I tend to prefer viewing at around 60% over 100%. Yes I use 100% for noise and sharpening controls, but as a general view of the quality I prefer 60%. You might well find that the 5DMIII is easier to judge at a lower % view - the photos - when resized and prepared for print/webdisplay (ie output) shouldn't have any softness problems at all.


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 30, 2012)

Overread said:


> Few things:
> 
> 1) The 70-200mm f2.8 MII makes a noticeable improvement over the MI version. Basically the Canon and Nikon MII/VRII are comparable as are the MI/VRI. These lenses both gained a lot in their upgrade to the II version, esp wide open at the long end (which is basically a zoom lenses weakest point.
> The MI is certainly a very good lens with many years of pro work behind it, the MII is, however, better.
> ...





i am not sure how clear this would be , but its shot with 70-200 f2.8 @ 70 f2.8 ... iso 1250  for me this image is still very soft as i can't see clear patterns of wood.








this ones takes from D800 with 24-70 f2.8  @ iso 4000 .. all the patterns are so clearly visible


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 30, 2012)

Can you post the actual pictures? I can't really tell from the screenshots.

Also what MM and shutter speed did you shoot the second one with?


----------



## Tony S (Oct 31, 2012)

Well in the first one with the Canon you are shooting at 1/100 of a second and the image is under exposed.  At 200mm it could very well be your technique that is killing your sharpness even with IS.

Comparing like subjects, with the same exposure, same focal lengths and at the same distances off of a rock solid support is the only real way to compare equipment.  Haphazardly comparing different images shot with all the different variables you are using  (focal lenghts, different lighting and exposures, different ISOs, differeing support) is not going to get you anything credible to really compare, even with the same camera.

  I really think it comes down to how you are setting up and shooting.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 31, 2012)

The problem is, all the gear no idea


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 31, 2012)

Tony S said:
			
		

> Well in the first one with the Canon you are shooting at 1/100 of a second and the image is under exposed.  At 200mm it could very well be your technique that is killing your sharpness even with IS.
> 
> Comparing like subjects, with the same exposure, same focal lengths and at the same distances off of a rock solid support is the only real way to compare equipment.  Haphazardly comparing different images shot with all the different variables you are using  (focal lenghts, different lighting and exposures, different ISOs, differeing support) is not going to get you anything credible to really compare, even with the same camera.
> 
> I really think it comes down to how you are setting up and shooting.



I actually have many shots which doesn't have the sharpness compared to my previous nikon setup. Yes I know different situations will yield different results but if none of the pics have the sharpness, then for sure something is wrong..... The only time I get better or comparative results is when I use my canon 85mm f1.2 @ f4


----------



## gsgary (Oct 31, 2012)

enerlevel said:
			
		

> I actually have many shots which doesn't have the sharpness compared to my previous nikon setup. Yes I know different situations will yield different results but if none of the pics have the sharpness, then for sure something is wrong..... The only time I get better or comparative results is when I use my canon 85mm f1.2 @ f4



it is because you dont know the fundementals of photography


----------



## Dubaiian (Oct 31, 2012)

I also have a 5D3 with 24-70 & 70-200 both mkIIS and the combination is super sharp.   With the 24-70 I did have to calibrate the lens slightly by using the spydercal tool.


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 31, 2012)

gsgary said:


> enerlevel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahah i like your attitude


----------



## unpopular (Oct 31, 2012)

if you switched brands for perceived status, what difference does it make if the images come out soft?


----------



## Ilovemycam (Oct 31, 2012)

enerlevel said:


> hello guys...  i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....
> the nikon gear which i used to use was
> NIKON D800
> NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8 G
> ...




What was wrong with your Nikon D800?????

Many photogs would be thrilled to death if they had one of those...me incuded!


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 31, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> enerlevel said:
> 
> 
> > hello guys...  i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....
> ...




yes i changed the nikon d800 because of the slow fps and large file transfer.    
anyway, the problem was the lens. i just checked the 70-200 is II version and it is surely much sharper then the Version I.  thanks guys.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 31, 2012)

enerlevel said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > enerlevel said:
> ...




Rubbish there is not that much difference between MK1 and 2, post a photo so we can see all the settings i bet the shutter speed was too slow


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 31, 2012)

I was experiencing a similar problem which I learned that it was actually too slow of a shutter speed for the focal length/my hands. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon/304245-calibrating-focus-5d-mark-iii-2.html


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 31, 2012)

well, it depends on the OP's definition of too soft.  I'd be hesitant to call the MKI 'too soft', even at f/2.8.  But you can certainly see a difference between the two lenses at f/2.8, especially around the edges.  And yes, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens is a decent amount better than its Canon L counterpart.  Again, experienced photographers can both navigate around this difference, but they can also see the difference between the two, especially at f/2.8.

So, while it is possible the OP is an idiot and has no idea what he/she is doing, it's also possible that the OP does know what they are doing and is just REALLY, EXTREMELY picky about the difference between the various lenses they are referring to.  

And gsgary, I can absolutely see the difference between the MKI and MKII at 200mm f/2.8.  It's not HUGE by any means, but it's certainly noticeable.  It's sort of like if you've gotten used to a retina resolution iPhone, and then pick up an older 3GS model.  Sure, the 3GS was an awesome screen for a long time, but you can easily see the difference between the two after you've gotten used to the retina.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 31, 2012)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> well, it depends on the OP's definition of too soft.  I'd be hesitant to call the MKI 'too soft', even at f/2.8.  But you can certainly see a difference between the two lenses at f/2.8, especially around the edges.  And yes, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens is a decent amount better than its Canon L counterpart.  Again, experienced photographers can both navigate around this difference, but they can also see the difference between the two, especially at f/2.8.
> 
> So, while it is possible the OP is an idiot and has no idea what he/she is doing, it's also possible that the OP does know what they are doing and is just REALLY, EXTREMELY picky about the difference between the various lenses they are referring to.
> 
> And gsgary, I can absolutely see the difference between the MKI and MKII at 200mm f/2.8.  It's not HUGE by any means, but it's certainly noticeable.  It's sort of like if you've gotten used to a retina resolution iPhone, and then pick up an older 3GS model.  Sure, the 3GS was an awesome screen for a long time, but you can easily see the difference between the two after you've gotten used to the retina.



Ive got my eye out for a Canon 50F0.95


----------



## enerlevel (Nov 1, 2012)

gsgary said:


> enerlevel said:
> 
> 
> > Ilovemycam said:
> ...




there is a lot of difference between the MK1 and the 2. u might wanna do some testings before claiming such comments. infact the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is said to be the weakest performer amongst the 70-200 gang.
the post was to know the problem not to prove anyone anything. and my problem seems to be solved with the new lens.


----------



## enerlevel (Nov 1, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> well, it depends on the OP's definition of too soft.  I'd be hesitant to call the MKI 'too soft', even at f/2.8.  But you can certainly see a difference between the two lenses at f/2.8, especially around the edges.  And yes, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens is a decent amount better than its Canon L counterpart.  Again, experienced photographers can both navigate around this difference, but they can also see the difference between the two, especially at f/2.8.
> 
> So, while it is possible the OP is an idiot and has no idea what he/she is doing, it's also possible that the OP does know what they are doing and is just REALLY, EXTREMELY picky about the difference between the various lenses they are referring to.
> 
> And gsgary, I can absolutely see the difference between the MKI and MKII at 200mm f/2.8.  It's not HUGE by any means, but it's certainly noticeable.  It's sort of like if you've gotten used to a retina resolution iPhone, and then pick up an older 3GS model.  Sure, the 3GS was an awesome screen for a long time, but you can easily see the difference between the two after you've gotten used to the retina.



that is exactly my point. yes the MK1 is a sharp lens but when to compare it to the D800 + 70-200 F2.8 VR II lens, the images are below par. i am not talking about experience photographers or skills. i am just talking about the sharpness in general when i pixel peep. i am paying so much money for the equipment, then off course i want the best!! i have played with a lot of gears lately and i know exactly how the D800/24-70/70-200 combo worked for Nikon.  i know what they are able to produce  and i wanted similar results if not better with my canon gear.  

i dont think the canon 24-70 and the 70-200 MKI is better then the nikon counterparts..     but yes i do think the 70-200 F2.8 IS II is on par or maybe a little better then the nikkor


----------



## gsgary (Nov 1, 2012)

enerlevel said:
			
		

> there is a lot of difference between the MK1 and the 2. u might wanna do some testings before claiming such comments. infact the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is said to be the weakest performer amongst the 70-200 gang.
> the post was to know the problem not to prove anyone anything. and my problem seems to be solved with the new lens.



It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which


----------



## enerlevel (Nov 1, 2012)

gsgary said:


> enerlevel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i can see the difference and if you see both at 200 f2.8, even u will be able to see it.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 1, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> It was solved because you used a higher ISO and higher shutter speed, if i was to take a photo with a mk1 and 2 you would not be able to tell which was which



Maybe not over the Internet, depending on the shot conditions, with all the dithering intenet jpeg uploads usually do. but looking at a high quality print or the full res photo on a 27" quality screen, you absolutely can. I deal with these two lenses every single day. There's a reason why I always get to work early on busy days, when we are putting our gear together I don't want to be stuck with the MkI when we have MkII's. basically I have to sharpen my images with the MkI a fairly decent amount. This is a bit problematic when I'm already often shooting athletic events at night and thus am wide open and high ISO. With the MkII, as long as it was in focus I NEVER have to sharpen. Heck, there are times when straight out of the camera it almost is on the verge of looking oversharpened  

Sure the MkI is a great lens. Sure for most everything you'd ever need it for its much more than sufficient. But pretending like there is no noticeable difference between it and the MkII is just silly when people who actually have used these two regularly day in - day out read your statements. 

Have you owned or used both of these on a regular basis?  I'm all for improving photographic skills before worrying about equipment. I made do with a D3100 for a loooooong time and just moved to a D7000 which isn't a world beater either. But on the other hand acting like there's no real difference between gear at all, and that almost nobody can discern whatever difference there is, is just equally as misleading. Even the sales reps at our company, who know next to nothing about photography can see the difference between the MkI and MkII. One is just a lens that does a job. The other is probably the best all around lens I've ever used.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 1, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you talking about the Canon 70-200 or Nikon


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 1, 2012)

gsgary said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



The Canon.  It's what I shot with for work at the studio I work for.  My personal gear is Nikon.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 1, 2012)

enerlevel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > enerlevel said:
> ...



A lot also depends on who is using it


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 1, 2012)

gsgary said:


> enerlevel said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Sure, but same could be said for an iPhone v. a D800.  I could probably take a better picture with my iPhone than my mom could take with a D800.  That doesn't mean that the iPhone is just as good of a camera.


----------

