# Q. regarding 70-200 2.8 IS II infinity performance @ 200mm



## d (Apr 12, 2015)

Just curious to hear about people's experiences using the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II at 200mm when focused at infinity.

I'm struggling the get decently sharp shots when shooting with this FL and distance - images lack the crispness that I get when using a shorter focal length, or with closer focus distances.

Initially thought it was my technique and/or AF back or front focus, but did a little test the other night shooting the moon, and after locking the lens off on the tripod, using LV to focus, and shooting with mirror up and delay mode (and stopping down to both f/4 and f/5.6) was still underwhelmed with the results.

Just wondering is this is generally considered a weak area of this lens, or whether I maybe need to get Canon to take a look at my copy?

Cheers,
d.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Apr 12, 2015)

Hi d,

sorry to hear about the lens. mines about 4 years old and ive had good results. When I first bough it I had it on a T1i and got great results. even the moon. When I bought a 5DII I was getting more mixed results. The autofocus missed at times especially trying to shoot animals that were far away. when I started reading the forum here, they talked about adjusting the AFMA. when I first tried it by manual adjustments in the camera, they didn't come out very well (shoot-adjust-shoot-adjust) and I even think I adjusted the wrong direction so make sure you read up on it. After that I just bought FoCal. Its a pain to stand out in your yard with a laptop but it works pretty good when it runs through the complete cycle. And I think FoCal likes you to decide where you want your maximum sharpness at ( ie 70mm, 100mm, 200mm) so you can tailor it more towards what you shoot most. one nice thing is that it gives you data so you can see your sharpest aperture is. Not sure what body you are using but lots of others have good advice here too. here's an old post that might help if you intend to go this direction. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18325.0
good luck and lets us know what you find out.


----------



## TeT (Apr 12, 2015)

AS A QUICK TEST

What else do you have that shoots at 200mm?

You could also match the 200mm framing with a shorter lens (all at infinity focus). Should be similar...

do it both manual and auto focus to see what you get....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2015)

Shooting far distant objects is difficult because all that air distorts the images. Its one of the reasons that lens test results usually show lower performance for long lenses, they have to test them at long distances, and even 100 ft of air has a big effect, a mile of air can have a huge effect, and a hundred miles of air always is a issue.

The other obvious reason is that your lens has been knocked out of adjustment and needs to be tuned up.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Apr 12, 2015)

*This thread is useless without pictures*

Post some pictures so we have something to go on. Without pictures we have to assume:

- part of it is down to the air degrading the IQ.
- part of it is down to insufficient shutter speed.
- part of it is down to the higher ISO/wider aperture used to get a sufficiently high shutter speed.
- a very small part of it is down to the lens being weakest at 200mm

If the lens is out of spec it would be very noticeable. Post pictures!


----------



## Nitroman (Apr 12, 2015)

Personally, I've tested my 70-200mm f4 IS zoom and it's also a bit soft at 200mm.

The lens is known to be excellent, but at the extreme 200mm it's not at it's best.

Try photographing a brick wall at a distance of 20 feet or more at different apertures and you'll see how much the aperture changes the lens quality. 

May even be worth getting Canon to check the lens if you're not happy.


----------



## d (Apr 12, 2015)

Thanks for all the replies, everyone!

Camera is a 1Dx, and yes I've considered it could simply have been degradation due to atmospheric conditions etc.

I'm generally very happy with the lens, but noticed the issue first when on a holiday day to Iceland over the 2014/15 new year period, and just couldn't seem to land a crisp shot at the lens' longer focal lengths and with far subjects. I was mostly hand-holding there (often with IS), and the light ain't plentiful, so ISO went up and shutter speeds down, so I put it down to that.

I'll have to wait until I'm home again to pull more examples, but I have on hand one of the moon shots my first message relates to - here's a 100% screen grab from LR, with all adjustments set to 0 (apart from pulling exposure a couple of stops) - given that conditions seemed pretty good (we were using binoculars as well that revealed a decent amount of detail on the surface) I was expecting to get a bit better than this. This is at 2.8, but images at 4 and 5.6 didn't seem any better.

dp

EDIT: I should reiterate this is locked off on the tripod, remote shutter release, MLU + delay mode, focussed manually with LV.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2015)

I agree that using a still subject would be best.
The moon is moving a lot faster than most people realize.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 14, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I agree that using a still subject would be best.
> The moon is moving a lot faster than most people realize.



That is too funny!


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 14, 2015)

d said:


> Thanks for all the replies, everyone!
> 
> Camera is a 1Dx, and yes I've considered it could simply have been degradation due to atmospheric conditions etc.
> 
> ...



1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?

2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus. 

3. Was the camera in manual mode? If not, it should be for this.

4. Were you in the city or the country?

5. How far was the tripod extended? Was there a weight used? Was there any wind?


----------



## d (Apr 14, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?
> 
> 2. You say you had to pull exposure a couple of stops. My understanding is that pulling exposure is overexposing and under developing. At f/2.8, 1/100th of a second at ISO 100 I am amazed you could achieve any kind of accurate focus on moon detail with such a bright moon in your live view screen. It must have looked like the sun. This isn't a lens or camera problem. This is an over exposure problem making it near impossible to get a decent focus.
> 
> ...



What happened to all the other version of this post with all the extra questions - did you decide to change it?

1. Lunar eclipse on the 4th.

2. Live View can be set to either simulate the exposure, or auto adjust brightness when viewing. I use the latter - it did not look like the sun, and has no influence on being able to gauge focus in LV anyway.

3. Of course.

4. Country.

5. Tripod setup was more than up to the task, conditions were perfect.

d.


----------



## d (Apr 14, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I agree that using a still subject would be best.
> The moon is moving a lot faster than most people realize.



It's not moving that quickly that you'd get motion blur at 1/100 second.

Let me be clear, I wasn't trying to test lens sharpness shooting the moon - I was shooting the moon, and noticed the results I was getting weren't as good as I would expect given the reputation of this lens, and that to the best of my knowledge the support system and technique used should kill just about any chance of vibration affecting sharpness.

I haven't got any other shoots with this lens on a tripod - I've only shot with it hand-held since purchasing it, otherwise I would post an image of a stationary subject. And I would shoot something new to check, but atm I'm arriving at work when it's dark, and leaving in the dark, so don't have any daylight hours when I'm free this week. Maybe on the weekend I'll get a chance...

So perhaps my question should be...assuming sound technique and a within-spec lens, should this image of the moon be sharper?

Cheers,
d.


----------



## meywd (Apr 14, 2015)

This is a 100% crop of a shot taken in December, its not @ f/2.8 but i don't think that's your problem, its mostly blur either from camera shake(wind?) or from the shutter speed, even at 1/400 i got some blurry ones, so the faster you go the better, also i think using AF is safe here.

*Edit*: this was taken with the 2xTC II

ISO400 400mm f/11 1/400


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2015)

When shooting something like the moon, make sure there are no thermals between you and the subject...ie any house roofs between you...or the thermal air movement will kill your sharpness. 
Have you calibrated your lens and camera? I tends to help a bit too...or pop it on a tripod (turning off the IS unit) and use live view.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 14, 2015)

d said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 1. On 04/04/2015 the moon was full. Your photo is from 04/10 or beyond. What gives?
> ...


----------



## d (Apr 14, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> When shooting something like the moon, make sure there are no thermals between you and the subject...ie any house roofs between you...or the thermal air movement will kill your sharpness.
> Have you calibrated your lens and camera? I tends to help a bit too...or pop it on a tripod (turning off the IS unit) and use live view.



As mentioned above my post of the moon image, I *was* on a tripod, and focussing manually with LV.

Cheers,
d


----------



## d (Apr 14, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I really don't require a tutorial on tripod use - as stated earlier, assume the setup was sound and conditions were perfect (because they both were)...I just want to know whether @200mm 2.8 focussed to infinity, this lens would be expected to deliver sharper details than what is seen here.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2015)

d said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



In that case, my answer is a simple yes.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 15, 2015)

There are so many variables
The moon is so far away and a small object in a big sky.
It's moving too.
My 70-200 is sharp but I'd reasonable in my expectations.
Even at 400mm the moon isn't that big.
Borrow something bigger and see if that gets you better results.
A smaller moon often has more contrast. You see the craters more clearly.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2015)

1. Where did you take the shot, geographically? That will determine environmental issues. I live in Florida and on a typical humid night, that's about what I'd expect for sharpness.

2. How did you focus in LV? Manually or using contrast AF? Generally I find that using contrast AF (using the remote to activate AF) is most accurate. In both cases, is it possible you moved the camera, even a tiny bit, with your hands, affecting focus before you tripped the shutter?


----------



## jhanson25 (Nov 4, 2016)

I am having the same issue with my 70-200 2.8 IS II on my 7D mark II. At 200 @2.8 it is quite soft until I stop it down to f/4 and beyond. Used to be super sharp on my 6D.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 4, 2016)

this moon shot is seriously soft ... something isn't right. AFMA at infinity?

here is what can be achieved with humble sigma 120 300 2.8 Sport + tc1.4 teleconverter @420mm. even sharper without 1.4tc


----------



## liangming16 (Nov 4, 2016)

If I do the test, I will pick a good light day to shoot the nearby object like rock or tree, or a tripod. That way you avoid all the different factors that may affect your result. Shooting moon is not good test of your lens, IMHO.

Lots of people use the 70-200 mm to take portrait too. That is another way to test your lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2016)

The measured performance of the lens at 200mm shows it to be extremely sharp. It is not as sharp as it is at wide angles, but still extremely sharp. Some of the issue with the test results is just distance. Even 100 ft can reduce apparent sharpness. Getting sharp moon photos is a art. People staying up until 2 or 3 in the morning in very cold and clear weather over several nights with extreme care to eliminate vibration. Even a good tripod transmits vibration, so hang weights and sandbag legs on solid ground, no porch or deck will do. Get away from city lights, a long ways away.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 5, 2016)

Have you experienced any difference between IS on and IS off?

My experience is that IS in some lenses, occasionally will blur the picture. 

This doesn't seem like a good explanation on why it is softer at 200, and not shorter focal lengths, but it should be easy to test and rule out.


----------

