# Is the 50mm 1.8 STM sharper than a 70-200 2.8 II at similar apertures?



## Mancubus (Sep 12, 2015)

My 50mm 1.8 impresses me every time with incredible sharpness when shooting at f/2.8. However, the 70-200 IS II often disappoints at the same aperture, even at f/4 I can notice that the 50mm is quite sharper when doing close up portraits.

I prefer the colors and the bokeh of the 70-200mm, but can't get that tack sharp effect I'm used to with the 50mm. To be honest, it's only noticeable when zooming 1:1 in a decent monitor, so for 99% of the cases it will be the same thing, but it bugs me since this lens cost me over 15 times more than the 50mm. 

Is the 50mm really sharper, or am I doing something wrong when using the 70-200?


----------



## rs (Sep 12, 2015)

The 70-200 at 2.8 certainly shouldn't be any less sharp than the 50 STM at 2.8 - that is at any zoom setting, in the centre of the frame. Towards the corners, the 70-200 should be sharper. 

I don't have a 50 STM to compare to, but this is a useful tool:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I would guess you've got an AFMA issue that needs correcting with the 70-200 for it to appear worse.


----------



## meywd (Sep 12, 2015)

This isn't a scientific test, and I don't have the stm, but I do have the 50mm f/1.8 II, I tried to match the composition, all below are 1:1 center crops, enlarge for full size.


----------



## meywd (Sep 12, 2015)

This isn't a scientific test, and I don't have the stm, but I do have the 50mm f/1.8 II, I tried to match the composition, all below are 1:1 center crops, enlarge for full size.


----------



## meywd (Sep 12, 2015)

This isn't a scientific test, and I don't have the stm, but I do have the 50mm f/1.8 II, I tried to match the composition, all below are 1:1 center crops, enlarge for full size.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 12, 2015)

Hey, if you think that's bad just think about the poor 800mm f/5.6 owners:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=459&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
:'(


----------



## meywd (Sep 12, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Hey, if you think that's bad just think about the poor 800mm f/5.6 owners:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=459&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> :'(



lol


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 17, 2015)

I will try to prepare some comparison the same way meywd did.

The way it feels now for me is that the 70-200mm is sharp enough for almost anything, but the 50mm stm is even sharper.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 17, 2015)

Center sharpness is just one part of the story. The 50mm lens is certainly excellent for the price. However, since they do not have a common focal length, there is no point to compare.


----------



## meywd (Sep 17, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Center sharpness is just one part of the story. The 50mm lens is certainly excellent for the price. However, since they do not have a common focal length, there is no point to compare.



I agree, and again this is only with the 50mm f/1.8 II, when I get a soft image, I am not surprised when I know that I took it with the 50mm, but when I find out that it's taken with 70-200mm I know that for sure something was off, focus, dof, high ISO, hand shake, or a fast object/low shutter, because when it's nailed it's is really sharper than the 50, but then again, I rarely use the 50 above f/2.8


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 17, 2015)

Ok, I performed a test similar to meywd's (using a circuit board instead), with tripod, mirror lockup, lots of lighting and manual focusing. The sharpness of the lenses is pretty close, both performed very well.

So, what I did is: went back to lightroom and analyzed some photos from a recent farm trip. I've noticed that in some shots, with IS on, my 70-200mm is a bit blurry. Looks like motion blur, but with a fairly steady subject and shooting at 1/800s.

Here is an example, the subject was moving very slowly, the head is in focus but still not quite sharp and seems affected by motion blur (but I was shooting at 1/800):




Closer crop:


----------



## Policar (Sep 17, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Center sharpness is just one part of the story. The 50mm lens is certainly excellent for the price. However, since they do not have a common focal length, there is no point to compare.



This correlates more closely with my experience (with the 50mm f1.8 II, not STM) than the comparison pics do. That might have been a bad copy or those photos were taken at a bad distance for the 50mm. I don't find the 70-200mm that sharp until stopped down a bit, not like the 18-35mm Sigma, even for HD video. But it's got great IS and a nice look. 

I can't think of anything better for the purpose it serves, which is ultimately what matters. The focal lengths aren't shared so the comparison is kind of pointless. If it's not sharp enough for the print size you're after and you need that focal length range, you can find sharper primes but I couldn't care less because they lack IS and the convenience of a zoom. Okay, I'd trade for the 200mm f2.

_


----------



## meywd (Sep 17, 2015)

Mancubus said:


> Ok, I performed a test similar to meywd's (using a circuit board instead), with tripod, mirror lockup, lots of lighting and manual focusing. The sharpness of the lenses is pretty close, both performed very well.
> 
> So, what I did is: went back to lightroom and analyzed some photos from a recent farm trip. I've noticed that in some shots, with IS on, my 70-200mm is a bit blurry. Looks like motion blur, but with a fairly steady subject and shooting at 1/800s.
> 
> ...



It happens to me, and I guess its handshake, or maybe IS working in mid shot.


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 20, 2015)

Today I took the 70-200mm out for some portrait shots, and I've decided to do it a bit differently this time: I decided to NOT use the AF-on button to focus, and focused using the shutter button as most people do.

This gave me a LOT more sharp shots, a few misfocused but none had that apparent minor motion blur despite using relatively low shutter speeds (1/200 or 1/100s). 

I think that when I use the AF-on button to focus (which apparently doesn't trigger the lens IS), there is not enough time for the IS to settle because I wasn't holding the shutter halfway before the shot. And since I didn't use the halfway shutter to focus I would just take the photo at once and this wouldn't give time for the IS to stop the moving parts.

But today, when focusing through the shutter button, it gave enough time for the IS to settle and avoid those slightly blurry shots I was having before.

Does my theory make sense?


----------



## meywd (Sep 20, 2015)

Mancubus said:


> Today I took the 70-200mm out for some portrait shots, and I've decided to do it a bit differently this time: I decided to NOT use the AF-on button to focus, and focused using the shutter button as most people do.
> 
> This gave me a LOT more sharp shots, a few misfocused but none had that apparent minor motion blur despite using relatively low shutter speeds (1/200 or 1/100s).
> 
> ...



I can't say if your theory is correct or not, but there is another probability, maybe without the AF-on button your grip is tighter and your hand is more stable.


----------



## Mancubus (May 20, 2016)

After almost a year from the opening this thread, here is the outcome:

Since my 5d3 was almost at the end of the warranty and had some minor spots on the sensor, I sent it in for a free cleaning before the warranty expires. Since I was sending the body in, I also sent the 50 STM and the 70-200 mentioned on this thread.

Took them 35 (!) days to service my gear, and when it got back here are the technician's reports:
- 5d3 was working fine, sensor cleaned
- 50mm STM was perfect, nothing done
- 70-200mm calibrated for both front and back focus

After I got it back, shot with the 70-200 for a week and WOW, it's much better now. Much more accurate and doesn't miss focus like before. 

I'm happy that I finally got it working properly, it wasn't bad before but I was a bit disappointed for spending so much money and still missing shots. Was blaming myself, changing shooting techniques, trying all types of AF adjustments and nothing helped.

It sucks that such a high end product comes out of the box in need of adjustments that will leave you without your gear for over a month!


----------



## j-nord (May 20, 2016)

Thanks for the update and glad the 70-200ii is fixed! Do you find the center sharpness similar now @2.8, 4, 5.6?


----------



## Mancubus (May 21, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Thanks for the update and glad the 70-200ii is fixed! Do you find the center sharpness similar now @2.8, 4, 5.6?



I would have to do some tests to verify that, but with the photos from last week I can say the details @2.8 are as good as my camera can produce.


----------



## AlanF (May 21, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> After almost a year from the opening this thread, here is the outcome:
> 
> Since my 5d3 was almost at the end of the warranty and had some minor spots on the sensor, I sent it in for a free cleaning before the warranty expires. Since I was sending the body in, I also sent the 50 STM and the 70-200 mentioned on this thread.
> 
> ...



Presumably, you had never AFMAed your 70-200mm?


----------



## Mancubus (May 21, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > After almost a year from the opening this thread, here is the outcome:
> ...



I did, but never got a consistent result regardless of the adjustment. I could adjust for a very specific test with tripod, iso 100, mirror lockup, contrasting subject etc...but when in the real life applications it would miss focus almost half kf the time anyways.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 21, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> . Was blaming myself, changing shooting techniques, trying all types of AF adjustments and nothing helped.
> 
> It sucks that such a high end product comes out of the box in need of adjustments that will leave you without your gear for over a month!



Unfortunately, in between the factory and the customer, there are the shipping companies. They are not kind to lenses, and sometimes there is some incredible stress when a forklift drops a pallet of packages 12 feet. You should always return a lens if it does not meet your expectations, shipping damages is a huge factor, its not something easy to control. Roger Cicala of lens rentals has discussed the shipping issue. They check every lens before its rented, and know that some are damaged in shipping because renters complain and return them with problems that were not there when it was shipped. My wife worked for a shipping company, and when the boss was away, they played football with packages at random, drop kicking them across the room into the containers. If they missed, they had to try again and again - you get the idea.

So, if you think a lens is not sharp, return it or send it for repair. Don't live with it and blam the manufacturer when it may have just been used in a game of football


----------



## nvsravank (May 22, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> Today I took the 70-200mm out for some portrait shots, and I've decided to do it a bit differently this time: I decided to NOT use the AF-on button to focus, and focused using the shutter button as most people do.
> 
> This gave me a LOT more sharp shots, a few misfocused but none had that apparent minor motion blur despite using relatively low shutter speeds (1/200 or 1/100s).
> 
> ...


Yes it does. Turn off IS if you are already at 400 or faster shutter speed. It really doesn't help. See if that will allow you to go back to your preferred shooting style with AF button.


----------



## Mancubus (May 22, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > . Was blaming myself, changing shooting techniques, trying all types of AF adjustments and nothing helped.
> ...



It took me weeks to start noticing that something was wrong. And here in Thailand the return policies are not as friendly as in the US or Europe, especially when you are a foreigner. At the best scenario they would ask me to send in my camera and lens for calibration (which I did after almost a year), but at the time I had an incoming trip and no way I would stay a month without my gear.

Anyway, for months I was blaming myself for my poor technique - because on online forums like this, the reason for poor shots is ALWAYS stupidity from the user, never the equipment.


----------



## meywd (Oct 23, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



I am glad you got the issue solved, the problem with blaming the gear is that its not the issue most of the time, however sometime it is to blame, and as with every other problem you may face in life, reducing the probabilities by checking common issues can help solve the problem faster, make a test that reduces human error, check all the common reasons, and when you are sure its not you, then send the gear to get fixed, this way you don't waste a month of your life with an issue that can be solved at home.


----------

