# I'm not impressed with my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... so is it me or the lens?



## jdramirez (Oct 14, 2012)

A little history to begin with. I have a 60D and previously owned a 70-200mm f/4L USM and it was ok. It didn't seem like a significant jump in image quality from my 55-250mm IS. Yes, I have faster shutter speeds, lower iso, and better bokeh (not to mention the size of the 70-200 drives the ladies wild... I assume... only guys ever comment about the size of the lens).

I decided to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8 and I'm still not wowed. Not the way I am when I use my 100mm f/2.8L macro USM. I was considering getting a 200mm f2.8L prime, but thought the 70-200 would be more usable for a variety of situations. I've also considered getting a 135mm f/2, but that seems too redundant to have with my 100mm L macro. 

So the other day I was shooting at 1/400th of a second because it was a really cloudy day and I was losing shots left and right (though in retrospect I should have taken off the CPL filter earlier and I should have bumped the iso up from 100 to 1200). So I take full blame for that, but the images I lost really irked me. I assumed incorrectly that 1/focal length would be sufficient (200x1.6=320 = shutter speed >1/320. Nope). 

Then yesterday it was a cold sunny day, so I took some shots without the CPL and some shots with. I normally shoot in aperture priority, but today I decided to go freestyle and shoot in manual. Iso was between 320 and 640. And my shutter speeds were 1/2000 and 1/8000 of a second. And I'm still not happy with the result. I've heard that the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135, and I have quite a few of the shots within that range, and I'm not blown away. 

The first two shots are Lightroom adjusted images adjusted from raw for the cloudy day with the 1/400 to 1/500th day. The 2nd set are untouched jpegs from the sunny day with the cpl and up to 1/8000 of a second. I was shooting in raw and I adjusted some of those, but not to the point where I was pleased with the result. 

So my query for yall is, is it me or is it my lens?


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 14, 2012)

So here are some of the shots with full sun, unaltered by Lightroom, but reduced in size by 60% so I could fit them onto here. 

For what it is worth, I was using AF servo and using the center point. So from a practical standpoint, the center of the image is where the focus was supposed to be. And since I didn't alter these in regards to cropping, that wouldn't affect the location of where the image was supposed to be focused.


----------



## sanj (Oct 14, 2012)

I am super duper happy with the lens for last several years. 
I am not for a single moment implying that you do not know what you doing, but do carefully examine your technique, something must be amiss. 
Do post when you figure out so we all can learn too. 
Best wishes and regards. 

Here is a photo I took a week ago.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2012)

I really do not recommend getting a expensive wide aperture lens with a body that has no AFMA. Narrow apertures usually hide focus inaccuracies in the depth of field, but its tough to hide front or back focus at f/2.8 or wider. You can, of course use it at f/8, but I doubt if you want that.
The images appear to be back focused, were you using AI Servo? Is the lens focusing accurately with a static object? If accurate on a static object at f/2.8, then its either a issue with not using AI Servo, or not having the AF point on the eye or wherever you want the focus point to be.
You may need to send the lens and body to Canon to be calibrated, with the 60D, there is no other way when lens and body do not match.


----------



## DB (Oct 14, 2012)

Joe, you're first shot has 'motion blur', despite shooting at 1/400s, perhaps 1/1,000s + panning with the action. The shutter speed is to freeze the action in the moment, but you're shooting handheld and you're arms are moving too. As others have said you need to use AI Servo mode and begin focusing about 2-3 seconds before you take your shot and roll with the action, whilst continuously shooting in hi-speed mode - that way you get some keepers.

The 1st pic is OOF down to you I'm afraid, nothing to do with camera or lens.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 14, 2012)

I recommend the use of a monopod to help steady your camera. This is a tip I've read many times for use with the non-IS version of the 70-200s.


----------



## zim (Oct 14, 2012)

I can totally understand why you are upset at loosing those pictures I particularly really really like the first one, I’d be gutted, could have been a great shot but honestly the lens is not at fault you said it yourself, ‘I take full blame’. I doubt there is a better lens available to take that picture.

Practice, practice and practice more and just when you think you are getting it think about that picture …. and practice a bit more


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 14, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> Iso was between 320 and 640. And my shutter speeds were 1/2000 and 1/8000 of a second. And I'm still not happy with the result. I've heard that the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135, and I have quite a few of the shots within that range, and I'm not blown away.



General recommendation: For movement use Tv mode with AutoISO and something like 1/3200s+ (the motion blur in your pictures is due to the way too slow 1/400s). But your motion blur sure looks tack sharp :-> ... you're purse really seems to be way ahead of your skills.

I've got a 60d, too, and this model is missing af micro adjustment - so do some tripod shots with a tilted inch ruler (google for details), focus some point @f2.8 and see if the af is indeed where it's supposed to be - otherwise you've got to have the lens adjusted, replace it (if possible) or get some camera model with afma. The 70-200/2.8 is really made for full frame, crop users might be more happy with the 70-300L unless you really really need the small depth of field and have to have a zoom at the same time.


----------



## Policar (Oct 14, 2012)

Pretty sure it's the lens...you have some brutal (and really unattractive) falloff/"vignetting" on the first shot. That's not normal unless something is really weird inside the lens.

Both of those shots are incredibly blurry relative to how well this lens can perform. The first has horrible motion blur; of course 1/focal length won't solve that if the subject is in motion. (And since you're using a 1.6 crop anyway and digital has twice the sharpness of film give-or-take, try 1/3.2(focal length) to get acceptable results at the very minimum unless you have very steady hands). The second shot is obviously focused wrong.

It's a myth that this lens is as sharp as a high end prime (wide open) or nearly as sharp as the newest zooms. The corners are soft at f2.8... But those are incredibly soft images, worse than what any lens alone should do. It might also be an issue of your AF not keeping up. Try shooting a still object from a tripod with liveview. If it's still soft (and you've got that wonky vignette) then something is up. Otherwise, it's user error.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 14, 2012)

On a 60D that's the full frame equivalent of 112-320mm, and without IS that's just too long to shoot handheld. Really all of the 70-200 2.8's are stellar performers, particularly the f/2.8 IS versions. I think if you use a monopod or tripod and a faster shutter speed you'll get much better results. Zoomed in all the way 1/400th is pretty much the minimum shutter speed you'll want to be using, so for fast moving subjects you'll want to go even faster.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 14, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> On a 60D that's the full frame equivalent of 112-320mm, and without IS that's just too long to shoot handheld.



Um, you are infected by IS-itits  ... for action shots IS doesn't matter at all, though it's convenient because it steadies the frame and lets you set the af point(s) easier - but that's no necessity like on supertele lenses. To freeze fast action you need at least 1/1000s+, at 320mm ff-equivalent that's hardly a problem even for 18mp @100% crop.



Policar said:


> Pretty sure it's the lens...you have some brutal (and really unattractive) falloff/"vignetting" on the first shot. That's not normal unless something is really weird inside the lens.



I noticed that too but thought it's a broken post processing software (wrong lens profile) - isn't it?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 14, 2012)

i'm just going to repeat what everyone has been saying - faster shutter speeds.

1/400-1/500 is not fast enough for action. you want at least 1/1000 for things like football (at least).

the shots don't look like the lens missed - they just have motion blur.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 14, 2012)

I had a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for many years before getting my 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII. When I got the MkII, I took many comparison shots and, without a doubt, the 70-200 is sharper. One thing I wanted to know is whether I should continue to carry the 70-300 for the extra reach. But, cropping shots taken with the 70-200 at 200mm is still sharper than the 70-300 at 300mm.

I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department. Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF. With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.

First tip for shooting sports with the 60D/70-200 MkII, make sure you're shooting with center focus point only. This will prevent another subject from grabbing focus from a different focus point. Also, the center focus point on the 60D can take advantage of the 2.8 (even if you're shooting at smaller apertures).

Second, use AI Servo mode. Be aware that AI Servo mode is predictive focusing and not exactly real time. It tries to predict where the subject will be when the shutter is actually tripped. To do so, it keeps track of the movement of the subject.

This works great when the subject moves in a straight line, but if the subject takes a sudden turn, the predictive focusing can be thrown off. This is where I ran into trouble with skating. That first shot or two just after the skater turned were more likely to be OOF. One work around is to get in the habit of momentarily lifting your finger off the shutter button when you subject changes direction. This forces the AI Servo mode to start over.

Third, look into "back button focusing" (google it). This is one of those things that you'll either love or hate.

Fourth, make sure your lens is in IS mode 2 for panning. Then, keep your elbows in, turn at the waist, and continue panning through the shots. (I don't agree that IS doesn't matter at high shutter speed action shots. Faster speeds may mitigate some of the benefits of IS, but I think every thing you can do to eliminate camera movement helps.)

Fifth, don't be afraid of ISO 3200 for action (noise Ninja helps a bunch).

When I first used the 70-200 on the 60D for skating, it did seem that I lost more shots to OOF. But, it then occurred to me that OOF was more obvious at f2.8 than using the 70-300 at 5.6. One solution was to shoot the 70-200 at 5.6, but I really needed the 2.8 for low light rinks.

The 70-200 f2.8L II is a great lens, but it may not live up to its full potential as a sport lens on a 60D. It's a fantastic sport lens on a 7D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 14, 2012)

FTb-n said:


> But, cropping shots taken with the 70-200 at 200mm is still sharper than the 70-300 at 300mm.


You are talking of the non-L version, correct? Of course that's no match to a lens that is 6 times more expensive, I was talking of the 70-300L which is only half the price of the 70-200L... 



FTb-n said:


> I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department. Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF. With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.


Only 20%? You're lucky! I think the af servo of my 60d is a bad joke and never use it unless something is moving with constant speed directly towards or away from me. The 60d simply is not customizable enough and has far too few af points to do efficient tracking.



FTb-n said:


> Second, use AI Servo mode. Be aware that AI Servo mode is predictive focusing and not exactly real time. It tries to predict where the subject will be when the shutter is actually tripped. To do so, it keeps track of the movement of the subject.


Ymmv, but definitely not my recommendation with the 60d. I shoot action with high shutter @iso2000-3200 and one shot, works for me though of course iso noise and esp. limited dynamic range @high iso is a big problem.


----------



## jeffabbyben (Oct 14, 2012)

Just my 2 cents but I would take some pics of non moving objects preferably on a tripod and then you can see how sharp your lens is. These look like motion blur to me. Also remember about depth of field wide open at 200mm depending on how close you are to the subject.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 14, 2012)

Yes, my 70-300 is non-L and maybe closer to the image quality of the OP's 55-250.

I also shoot ISO 2000-3200 for most indoor sports with the 70-200 MkII. For skating, One Shot isn't enough. AI Servo is a definate plus. Noise Ninja does wonders for high ISO noise. I've been happy with the dynamic range, but then I moved up from an XT.


----------



## pardus (Oct 14, 2012)

I am not sure how well the 60D AF works but should be able to take killer shots with that lens. On my 7D and 70-200 2.8L non-IS I get fantastic sports shots. Hand held, even indoors at an ice rink with horrible light at 200mm. I always shoot ai servio, Shutter priority ( 1/500th for movement directly at me or 1/1000 for side movement), outside during the day, you shouldn't have a lack of light and I would keep my iso at 100 and aperture between f2.8 and f8 depending what your shooting. 

To figure out if it's you, your camera or your lens. go out to the park, bring a tripod, set your timer to 2 sec and snap some still life shots. Pick an object that is standing out on its own with some depth behind it like a player on a field would have. snap some shots and try your other lens. if that doesn't produce well something is wrong. I always shoot sports hand held and if your over 1/500th I don't think IS would help. make sure you relax when you shoot, take smooth breaths and don't get caught up in the action. Go shoot some kids that aren't yours and worry about getting the shot not if their going to catch the ball or not. 

just my 2 cents.


----------



## swampler (Oct 14, 2012)

Both of those are 1/400 at ISO 100. Crank that ISO up a bit, 1/800 at ISO 200 will be much better, but I'd even go 1/1600 at ISO 400. Won't be a problem with today's cameras.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 14, 2012)

> I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department. Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF. With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.



that's about my experience...I used the same combo for a few skating shows, perhaps about a 70-80% keeper rate at the last show I went to. However, even out of the "keepers", many were not sharp, but remained usable after some PP sharpening in-house. I like to shoot in RAW so I don't fire bursts, but instead try to predict when the skater(s) do moves and time the shot right. 

I have to say, though, that exceeded my expectations of the 60D AF. I still missed a few shots, but once I improved my technique a bit (faster shutter speeds, better/longer tracking) I was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. Still, a better AF system would really be nice...I guess I have one now in the 5D, with the caveat of loss of reach...

______________

Regarding the OP's shots, definitely need a faster shutter speed...but even then, it should not be THAT blurry. For sports one really has to use Servo mode, hold the camera firm and track the subject(s) one is interested in shooting. I've learned through experience that typically you can't just pick up the camera, point and shoot and hope for a sharp shot...


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 15, 2012)

With skating, timing is everything. I don't rely on burst either. Burst without timing is a good way to get a bunch of shots of a skater's backside during a spin.

Regarding the OP's focus question, try the Bob Atkins focus test. If you have access to a second body, try it with both bodies. If there is a focus issue, two bodies will help determine whether it's the lens or the body.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_testing.html


----------



## IIIHobbs (Oct 15, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> The first two shots are Lightroom adjusted images adjusted from raw for the cloudy day with the 1/400 to 1/500th day. The *2nd set* are untouched jpegs from the sunny day with the cpl and up to 1/8000 of a second. I was shooting in raw and I adjusted some of those, but not to the point where I was pleased with the result.
> 
> So my query for yall is, is it me or is it my lens?



Seeing the 2nd Set would be helpful. 

The images shared, as many have said already, are a result of the shutter speed is too slow. The rule of thumb you used is to reduce camera shake hand holding a lens, it has nothing to do with moving objects and the speed needed to freeze action. Sports require 1/1000 at a minimum, faster at times depending on what action it is you are trying to stop.

Post up the other examples.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

sanj said:


> I am super duper happy with the lens for last several years.
> I am not for a single moment implying that you do not know what you doing, but do carefully examine your technique, something must be amiss.
> Do post when you figure out so we all can learn too.
> Best wishes and regards.
> ...



That's not fair. That is beautiful lighting on an interesting subject. It would be difficult to mess that shot up.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I really do not recommend getting a expensive wide aperture lens with a body that has no AFMA. Narrow apertures usually hide focus inaccuracies in the depth of field, but its tough to hide front or back focus at f/2.8 or wider. You can, of course use it at f/8, but I doubt if you want that.
> The images appear to be back focused, were you using AI Servo? Is the lens focusing accurately with a static object? If accurate on a static object at f/2.8, then its either a issue with not using AI Servo, or not having the AF point on the eye or wherever you want the focus point to be.
> You may need to send the lens and body to Canon to be calibrated, with the 60D, there is no other way when lens and body do not match.



Well, the 50D had microadjust... you can blame Canon for stripping that away. I do have a second 70-200mm f/2.8L that I was going to sell so if this is back focused, then I might have better luck with the other. I generally don't like testing my lenses with a ruler and lined paper, but I think that might be worth it to see which lens matches my 60D better. 

I didn't really get "lucky" at this game with the action coming towards me, so a ton of the shots are at a greater distance and the depth of field obviously wouldn't be quite as narrow if the subjects were closer. 

Unfortunately, the subject of these action shots are less than enthralling... but my question is still about the lens quality and no so much the quality of composition or the shot.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

DB said:


> Joe, you're first shot has 'motion blur', despite shooting at 1/400s, perhaps 1/1,000s + panning with the action. The shutter speed is to freeze the action in the moment, but you're shooting handheld and you're arms are moving too. As others have said you need to use AI Servo mode and begin focusing about 2-3 seconds before you take your shot and roll with the action, whilst continuously shooting in hi-speed mode - that way you get some keepers.
> 
> The 1st pic is OOF down to you I'm afraid, nothing to do with camera or lens.



I did use AF servo... but the shot was ruined by me because I didn't move quickly enough to the main subject so it could lock onto and focus. I accept that. But I do trail my subject will 1/2 depressing the shutter so the servo can do its job... so that isn't really a technique that is foreign to me. But I think a concern would be if I had made the move to the players quickly enough and the problem was with the gear. I am willing to accept blame.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I recommend the use of a monopod to help steady your camera. This is a tip I've read many times for use with the non-IS version of the 70-200s.



I'll use a monopod when I'm in doors... that's not an issue. But for outdoor work, shooting at 1/5000 of a second should be more than sufficient. 

I actually used a monopod and a speedlite at a parade last week... I wasn't happy with those results either.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Iso was between 320 and 640. And my shutter speeds were 1/2000 and 1/8000 of a second. And I'm still not happy with the result. I've heard that the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135, and I have quite a few of the shots within that range, and I'm not blown away.
> ...



Historically on a bright day like yesterday when I put it in Shutter priority, it will adjust my aperture which annoys me because I want the shallow depth of field. So yesterday I shot in manual as I said... and I'm sure I overexposed some of the shots. It's really the 2nd day that I REALLY went and shot with the lens, so I expect better results. I'm thinking of shooting in aperture priority and setting the iso and then allowing the shutterspeed to vary (on a bright day). In doors... that will be a tougher nut to crack. 

And I realize that the above shots aren't my best work... which is why I'm coming to yall. I've taken much better shots with my 60D and my 100mm, so my skills aren't completely lacking, though I can appreciate that yall would jump to that conclusion based on what I initially showed you.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Iso was between 320 and 640. And my shutter speeds were 1/2000 and 1/8000 of a second. And I'm still not happy with the result. I've heard that the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135, and I have quite a few of the shots within that range, and I'm not blown away.
> ...



And I am considering a jump into the full frame world. I usually wind up shooting in darker venues (school plays, pageants, etc.) so I am quite drawn to the 5d mk ii and it's relative price, but I might wind up getting a mkiii over the mkii or 6D because I really don't like the lone cross af point. I elected to get the 60D because it had 9 cross points and I can't see taking a step back when I'm taking an upgrade.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Policar said:


> Pretty sure it's the lens...you have some brutal (and really unattractive) falloff/"vignetting" on the first shot. That's not normal unless something is really weird inside the lens.
> 
> Both of those shots are incredibly blurry relative to how well this lens can perform. The first has horrible motion blur; of course 1/focal length won't solve that if the subject is in motion. (And since you're using a 1.6 crop anyway and digital has twice the sharpness of film give-or-take, try 1/3.2(focal length) to get acceptable results at the very minimum unless you have very steady hands). The second shot is obviously focused wrong.
> 
> It's a myth that this lens is as sharp as a high end prime (wide open) or nearly as sharp as the newest zooms. The corners are soft at f2.8... But those are incredibly soft images, worse than what any lens alone should do. It might also be an issue of your AF not keeping up. Try shooting a still object from a tripod with liveview. If it's still soft (and you've got that wonky vignette) then something is up. Otherwise, it's user error.



I added the vignetting... to frame my ugly photo.  I did use a faster shutter speed yesterday, but it still didn't quite remind me of how sharp my 100mm L prime is, and I realize prime v zoom is an argument that will never be won, but it still seemed to be a little lacking.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

jeffabbyben said:


> Just my 2 cents but I would take some pics of non moving objects preferably on a tripod and then you can see how sharp your lens is. These look like motion blur to me. Also remember about depth of field wide open at 200mm depending on how close you are to the subject.



I'm aware of the shallowness of the depth of field... and that's what I'm going for. Honestly, if I lose 60% of my shots because of the depth of field, but the 40% are practically unworldly because of the same depth of field... I'm willing to accept that.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

pardus said:


> I am not sure how well the 60D AF works but should be able to take killer shots with that lens. On my 7D and 70-200 2.8L non-IS I get fantastic sports shots. Hand held, even indoors at an ice rink with horrible light at 200mm. I always shoot ai servio, Shutter priority ( 1/500th for movement directly at me or 1/1000 for side movement), outside during the day, you shouldn't have a lack of light and I would keep my iso at 100 and aperture between f2.8 and f8 depending what your shooting.
> 
> To figure out if it's you, your camera or your lens. go out to the park, bring a tripod, set your timer to 2 sec and snap some still life shots. Pick an object that is standing out on its own with some depth behind it like a player on a field would have. snap some shots and try your other lens. if that doesn't produce well something is wrong. I always shoot sports hand held and if your over 1/500th I don't think IS would help. make sure you relax when you shoot, take smooth breaths and don't get caught up in the action. Go shoot some kids that aren't yours and worry about getting the shot not if their going to catch the ball or not.
> 
> just my 2 cents.



I know the 60D is getting a bad wrap in this thread, but it has been a solid performer for me with other lenses which is why I didn't really consider it to be a potential problem in this discussion. 

And for what it is worth, my daughter is a cheerleader... and after the first or second time hearing the same cheers, it is simply more entertaining to get to the sideline and take some shots of stranger's kids.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Act444 said:


> > I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department. Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF. With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't really have a subject that I'm tracking in the game... which is also where the problem comes in. It's not like my kid is the one intercepting the ball. So I start by setting the lens at 115 or so focal length, locking in on the QB, and the watching the action develop. When the QB throws, I'm tracking the ball through the air (not that effectively) so the center AF point then locks into infinity or at least the other fans, and then hopefully I get to the receiver before the ball does allowing the AF to lock in on my receiver. It would be nice if I had just one target that I would follow, but that also would be less interesting.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > The first two shots are Lightroom adjusted images adjusted from raw for the cloudy day with the 1/400 to 1/500th day. The *2nd set* are untouched jpegs from the sunny day with the cpl and up to 1/8000 of a second. I was shooting in raw and I adjusted some of those, but not to the point where I was pleased with the result.
> ...



Done. I really should have done this earlier, but I wanted to watch the Cowboys... and that did not turn out to be the best use of my time. 

Here are two more.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Here are some I took with the 100mm L.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

And here's one more with the 100mm L.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 15, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > > I have also shot figure skating events with the MkII on a 60D and learned that the 60D is a bit lacking in the focus tracking department. Roughly 20% of my shots were OOF. With the 7D, less than 5% are OOF.
> ...



It is better to keep at 200mm as much as you can and you might try focusing on the receiver, certainly once the ball is released start focusing on who it is heading toward, rather than trying to track the flying ball. At that level it's 99% sure the QB would even look to who he will throw it to and give it away way ahead of time. You can use one eye outside of the VF to keep a wider view of what is going on.

Make sure to use center point only on that camera. That camera will have a lot of misses even with perfect technique on your part. 

At f/2.8 MFA can make a huge difference, Canon sadly cut it from the 60D. Not sure that is the problem but maybe it needs to be sent in for calibration.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 15, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> And here's one more with the 100mm L.



that second shot is cool! +100


----------



## Act444 (Oct 15, 2012)

you know, with all this talk about the 60D lacking AFMA, I haven't found I really NEEDED it or wished I had it. Well, maybe with one exception- my first 40mm 2.8 I had to send back because it was backfocusing and I needed to find one that focused properly on my camera. Then again, it was a pretty severe backfocus so even AFMA may not have been able to save that one...then there was a time my 17-55 appeared to have a slight backfocus at 55mm in certain shots...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > And here's one more with the 100mm L.
> ...



Thanks. As i usually say,a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 15, 2012)

Act444 said:


> ...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.



... with *Canon* lenses that is, I guess? I can report the same from my 60d, but also all Canon. My theory is that Canon not only removed afma from the 60d to make the 7d look better, but to stall 3rd party lens sales - non-Canon lenses seem to be much more in need of af adjustment.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.
> ...



Ditto with your sentiment. Whether it was a 50 mm f 1.8 or 1.4, or the 55-250, or the 24-105, or the 100mm, the 70-300, or the aforementioned 70-200 f4l.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 15, 2012)

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said as to your possible cures, but i rather like the first shot you got. to me it's not lost at all. it's fantastic. I have the 70-200 2.8, and i find it to be a fabulous lens. i'm sure it's not the match of my 300 2.8 on my 5dmk3, but on my 5d i can't tell any difference. It's not a myth, it's a legend. i should copyright that. 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but with all my other lenses, it's been more or less fine.
> ...



I don't buy that third party lens thing. I have seen ZERO difference in MFA need for third party vs Canon lenses, granted my sample sizes are hardly huge in the grand scheme of things.

So, more importantly, someone managed to catch some Canon exec at a show saying that they took it out to promote the 7D and to make putting it back into some potential 70D give the 70D an extra, exciting, 'new' selling point. So blame it on the out of control Canon marketing guys IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ...someone managed to catch some Canon exec at a show saying that they took it out to promote the 7D and to make putting it back into some potential 70D give the 70D an extra, exciting, 'new' selling point. So blame it on the out of control Canon marketing guys IMO.



Nice to hear that's 'confirmed' so to speak. It's always been obvious to me that's exactly why the 60D doesn't have AFMA. Since the the firmware code is there already, someone had to actively make the decision to omit it, and that someone was clearly in Marketing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ...someone managed to catch some Canon exec at a show saying that they took it out to promote the 7D and to make putting it back into some potential 70D give the 70D an extra, exciting, 'new' selling point. So blame it on the out of control Canon marketing guys IMO.
> ...



Ugh, if the reason really is intra-Canon model marketing that's pretty a pretty cheap move! Generally I like to speculate what greedy schemes the Canon marketing guys are up to, but even I feel bad when I hear it really confirmed :-( ... it is my (current) brand after all and I've been using Canon since ~1990.


----------



## gjones5252 (Oct 15, 2012)

I have to agree. After seeing this post i organized my Lightroom by lens and scanned through the pictures and the really impressive keepers that pop weren't as common as i would expect.. I have been less than impressed with my non is 2.8 on both a 60d and 5dII. I am mostly taking portraits and so for me its not a shutter speed issue. I rented the IS II for a wedding before i bought this and using IS or not the picture were much sharper and overall better looking which equaled to a higher keeper rate. With my version eyes are frequently out of focus and the bokeh just isn't where i would expect for a 2.8. Trying to sell mine in order to upgrade but hoping it doesn't prove to be user error.


----------



## keemikpoiss (Oct 16, 2012)

In regards to your thoughts on moving up to full frame, here is a pair of shots that reflect my experience going from 50D to 5D3 with 70-200 f/2.8L II when shooting outdoors sports at distances comparable to yours.

The first shot is with 50D, using f/3.2 @70 mm, 1/1000, ISO 100, using tripod and "one shot" focusing. This looks pretty average in sharpness among the kid soccer pictures that I got with this setup last year. I did manage to get a few sharp ones, but this shall be attributed to good luck rather than a great skill. I did not find Al Servo on 50D that useful ... focus switched to something else too often.

The second shot is one of the very first with 5D3, using f/3.2 @168 mm, 1/2000, ISO 640, also tripod but now "Al Servo" focusing. My rate of sharp soccer images is still not particularly high, but the ones that are nicely in focus are much better than anything I got with 50D. Beside better autofocusing, I feel more at ease in pushing up ISO, enabling faster shooting. For example, the second goalie shot was taken at 8 AM and the sun was not exactly cooperating with illuminating the subject. BTW, both all taken as single shots rather than continuous shooting.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 16, 2012)

keemikpoiss said:


> In regards to your thoughts on moving up to full frame, here is a pair of shots that reflect my experience going from 50D to 5D3 with 70-200 f/2.8L II when shooting outdoors sports at distances comparable to yours.
> 
> The first shot is with 50D, using f/3.2 @70 mm, 1/1000, ISO 100, using tripod and "one shot" focusing. This looks pretty average in sharpness among the kid soccer pictures that I got with this setup last year. I did manage to get a few sharp ones, but this shall be attributed to good luck rather than a great skill. I did not find Al Servo on 50D that useful ... focus switched to something else too often.
> 
> The second shot is one of the very first with 5D3, using f/3.2 @168 mm, 1/2000, ISO 640, also tripod but now "Al Servo" focusing. My rate of sharp soccer images is still not particularly high, but the ones that are nicely in focus are much better than anything I got with 50D. Beside better autofocusing, I feel more at ease in pushing up ISO, enabling faster shooting. For example, the second goalie shot was taken at 8 AM and the sun was not exactly cooperating with illuminating the subject. BTW, both all taken as single shots rather than continuous shooting.



i'm not moving up any time soon. I have to same not only my pennies, but my nickels a well... I think I'd probably be willing to considering an intermediary step going with the 5d mkii presuming I get a solid price on it, and then seeing if I like the full frame lifestyle. I really think I would miss the reach of the crop sensor for sports, so I'm mulling over having two bodies, but that would probably just annoy the wife.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2012)

keemikpoiss said:


> The first shot is with 50D, using f/3.2 @70 mm, 1/1000, ISO 100, using tripod and "one shot" focusing. This looks pretty average in sharpness among the kid soccer pictures that I got with this setup last year. I did manage to get a few sharp ones, but this shall be attributed to good luck rather than a great skill. I did not find Al Servo on 50D that useful ... focus switched to something else too often.


In the first shoot it seems that the focus lock was behind the subject.


----------



## pixyl (Oct 16, 2012)

keemikpoiss said:


> In regards to your thoughts on moving up to full frame, here is a pair of shots that reflect my experience going from 50D to 5D3 with 70-200 f/2.8L II when shooting outdoors sports at distances comparable to yours.



I also have a 50D and I'm not particularly happy with sharpness either. I really should give AF microadjustment a go but haven't gotten round to it yet -seems like a time consuming task.
I upgraded from a Rebel XT (350D) about a year ago and had the same issues with that camera, so I suppose it's got more to do with my technique than anything else. Regarding lenses I have a 70-200 f/4L (non-IS version) which I find considerably better in the IQ and build department than my Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, and because of that a greater joy to use, but with a bit too much reach for normal day to day use. I would probably use it more with a FF body.Still, I don't find it "tack sharp" as I had hoped for.

So is the consensus that the 50D autofocus is so-so? And how does the 70-200 f/4L compare to the f/2.8L version in terms of IQ/sharpness?


----------



## tiger82 (Oct 16, 2012)

When I started with my 70-200mm IS f/2.8, I tended to shoot wide open and lack of DOF really affected the quality of my sports shots. I experimented with closing my aperture and the difference was noticeable. Shooting shutter priority helped a bit as I got the action plus maximized my DOF to get more of the action in the frame. Too much DOF cluttered the frame, though, Just my experience.....


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 16, 2012)

I believe the last football game of the year is this week. Maybe I'll take both of my 70-200's for a spin and see if one is sharper on my body than the other.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Oct 16, 2012)

The additional images are helpful.

In the shot where the ball carier is coming towards us, the grass just behind the player is in focus. Your AI is capturing the area where they were and then as you depress the shutter, they are closer and slightly out of focus. Using a smaller aperature will help over come this issue.

Similarily, but for different reasons, in the shot with player 13, the grass just slightly beyond the player is in focus. I believe that your AI is averaging here and giving this result.

As for the shots with your 100mm, it's no surprise that the 100 Macro kills on sharpness when compared with the 70-200 zoom; like the 135 f2L, it just is that much better.

I sold my 70-200 f2.8L IS when moving to FF earlier this year, replacing it with a 135 f2L and 300 f4L IS. The 300 has since been replaced by a 300 f2.8L IS. I do have the 100 f2.8L Macro on my Christmas list (love those shots you shared).


----------



## friedmud (Oct 16, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> Historically on a bright day like yesterday when I put it in Shutter priority, it will adjust my aperture which annoys me because I want the shallow depth of field. So yesterday I shot in manual as I said... and I'm sure I overexposed some of the shots. It's really the 2nd day that I REALLY went and shot with the lens, so I expect better results. I'm thinking of shooting in aperture priority and setting the iso and then allowing the shutterspeed to vary (on a bright day). In doors... that will be a tougher nut to crack.



This is exactly why Nikon cameras have proper Auto ISO capabilities.

Even on cheap Nikon bodies you can do this:

1. Set the camera to Av and f/4.0 (or whatever you want)
2. Set a minimum shutter speed to catch the action that you want (like 1/1600). On mos. cameras you can also set this as a multiplier of your focal length.
3. Leave it on Auto ISO

This lets you do exactly what you want: have the DoF you want while keeping the shutter speed you need. If a football player runs into the light and the camera pegs out at ISO 100 it can increase the shutter speed above your minimum. If a player runs into the shade the ISO will automatically be increased to keep the shutter speed above your minimum.

It works very well in my limited experience.


----------



## j1jenkins (Oct 16, 2012)

The one question I have is that are you shooting at 2.8 or are you opening it up to 3.5 or 4.0. Depth of field at close distances is very thin at 2.8. If you shoot 135mm @ F2.8, your DOF at 10 feet is a little over 3 inches. At 20 feet, you get 1ft 1in. I have the 5dmkiii and I shoot my son's baseball games at 4.0 and iso range of 200-400 with aperture priority to handle the shutter speed. It works fantastic! The only other comment I have is that the AFMA has brought new life to my lenses. I had the 40D without AFMA and now with the 5dmkiii, I have tuned my lenses so things are sharp. Given that the smallest of tolerances can affect the overall shot we generate, I have come to believe this is a necessary feature for me. 

I'm always learning and by no means a know it all. I just shot some individual shots for the baseball team and botched several with the flash fill and washed the whole image out. It's a fun hobby to play with and learn as we go.


----------



## dmsphoto (Oct 16, 2012)

FWIW I felt my copy of the 70-200 2.8IS V1 was soft wide open. I was never impressed given the lens reputation. I bought the V2 of this lens and that IS tack sharp wide open through out the zoom range. Absolutely love it. To me V1 and V2 are night and day.

It was mentioned about the AFMA, now that we have it, it is tough using an older body (1D MKII in my case) because I know the sharpness could be better (among other things).

I have been using 5D MKII and a 7D...7D for sports mostly. But I recently got a 1DX...the AF system is 100x's better. There are shots I'd be mad I missed (w/7D) because the AF could not keep up...now with the 1DX it is usually me who can't keep up.

I realize the 1DX may not be in everyones budget, but after using it, it truly is a whole different class of camera.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm seriously considering selling both 70-200's and then get the 135. Does anyone mind not having is on the 135? 

The extra stop of light should come in handy when i shoot my daughter playing basketball.


----------



## JaxPhotographer (Oct 17, 2012)

After reading the posts associated with your problem with the 70-200L IS, I can share that I had similar problems when I first added my 7D a few years ago. I originally had a 10D and it was spot on with the 70-200L IS. When I got the 7D i was dealing with major back focus ([email protected] and [email protected]) and was quite disappointed until I figured out I how to do Auto-Focus Micro Adjustment. That solved everything after a couple months of frustration. The 70-200 was also back focusing on my newer 5DIII, though not as severely as the 7D but this time I went immediately to my FoCal and fixed the AFMA and it is super sharp now that the AF is tuned.

As someone else suggested, sending your body and lenses in for calibration is probably your best option since it does not offer AFMA. If you don't and choose to replace your lenses, you have no guaranty that you won't have the problem again even with a different focal length lense.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 18, 2012)

So with all the discussion about back focusing... I decided to do a little testing. The center focal point is ON the hole in the middle of the ruler. Two shots (obviously the ones with more bokeh) are at f/2.8 and the other two shots are at f/8.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 18, 2012)

Oh, and these were tripod mounted with a 2 second delay after the shutter was depressed. So human error really should be eliminated.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 18, 2012)

JaxPhotographer said:


> After reading the posts associated with your problem with the 70-200L IS, I can share that I had similar problems when I first added my 7D a few years ago. I originally had a 10D and it was spot on with the 70-200L IS. When I got the 7D i was dealing with major back focus ([email protected] and [email protected]) and was quite disappointed until I figured out I how to do Auto-Focus Micro Adjustment. That solved everything after a couple months of frustration. The 70-200 was also back focusing on my newer 5DIII, though not as severely as the 7D but this time I went immediately to my FoCal and fixed the AFMA and it is super sharp now that the AF is tuned.
> 
> As someone else suggested, sending your body and lenses in for calibration is probably your best option since it does not offer AFMA. If you don't and choose to replace your lenses, you have no guaranty that you won't have the problem again even with a different focal length lense.



These kids I'm shooting are about 15+ feet away, so I wind up going from about 100 to 200 and then I wind up cropping the photo... so sure I have a shallow depth of field, but I guess I just refuse to believe that it is so shallow as to affect my perception about them. It's frustrating. Thanks for all of yall's help, but I usually don't keep lenses that long. I buy them at a great price and then inevitably sell them about a year later at a profit, so it doesn't quite seem worth it to me to pay Canon to optimize something I will probably keep for less than 6 months. It's frustrating.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Oct 18, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> I'm seriously considering selling both 70-200's and then get the 135. Does anyone mind not having is on the 135?
> 
> The extra stop of light should come in handy when i shoot my daughter playing basketball.



Hey JD, me again. 

Love the 135 f2L for Basketball; it is far superior to the 70-200 IMO. But beware, it has a very shallow DOF also. 

It could potentially be a little short for outdoor sport; I prefer 300mm there.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 18, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'm seriously considering selling both 70-200's and then get the 135. Does anyone mind not having is on the 135?
> ...



I thought I might be able to bring my flash (430exII) to the game, but I'm 99% confident my daughter would yell at me saying it was distracting. So... I'll need a body with solid iso performance and a big aperture. And as I've said before, I'm willing to sacrifice 60% of my shots if the 40% are SPECTACULAR. 

As for outdoors, I think you are right, but it is only 67.5% less than the 70-200. So I should be able to crop in enough to make up for the difference. And I like to cherry pick shots, so I hang out around the goal line, so I'm only 10 yards away from the action (depending upon which direction the play goes.


----------

