# 70-200 f/2.8L IS II underwhelming



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Hi guys,
A little over a year ago I acquired the 70-200 2.8 IS II "dream lens" and was kinda disappointed since it wasn't so exceptional as expected.

The images were ok but were not justifying the 2000 Euro Price Tag. But I needed the range and thought that poor images are more likely to result from a user error than from a highly regarded lens so I kept the lens and tried to improve. Soon I found out that this lens is a beast to handle on a 5d2, since its really difficult to focus at 200 2.8 with the outer focus points in low light, even in fairly good light. So I found a workaround and soon I was able to get really good concert and event shots with this lens on a 5d2 even with some more static sport as table tennis. But flowers and wildlife were still unacceptable. 

Being desperate I diged out my first DSLR lens, a sigma 18-200 DC Sony a mount mounted it on a Sony alpha 300 and compared it to the 70-200 2.8 II on a 40D both at f/6.3. Surprisingly the sigma was much better!

I couldn't believe my eyes so I sent the lens to cps and the changed pretty much the entire inside of the lens, some optical elements, the barrel and the IS. After that it was on pair with the sigma but I am still not convinced that I have to spend nearly 2000 Euro on a lens to get equivalent IQ as a 120 Euro lens. Initially I intendet to use the 70-200 with extenders to get some tele for occasional use but currently i assume that would be a waste of money.

So I am asking you for help: what am I doing wrong?

For you to judge I took some images to illustrate the issue: https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=9A24089482BEBF7A!1547

The strange glow is the issue that bothers me. I know that these are macro lens subjects and usually I use my 100L for that but sometimes I just don't have it with me, so the 70-200 has to fill the gap.

Thank you in advance  and sorry for bad language 
I follow this forum for quite a while and you are great guys


----------



## pwp (Jun 6, 2014)

It's not without its stellar performance reputation and extremely consistent build quality that the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII has found it's way into just about every Canon professional's bag on the planet. From this point it's frequently stated as being a "most-used" lens. So what's happening for you?

There is a chance that it is a very rare poor copy, it's in serious need of AFMA adjustment, there is comprehensive user-error or the unlikelihood of you being a malicious troll. I doubt this is the case!

Read up on AFMA (auto focus micro adjustment in case you were unsure) and do the adjustments as a start point. 

This tends not to be a lens that disappoints. If you bought second hand, there are the occasional copies that have been dropped/damaged and badly repaired, then dumped into the hands of a trusting, unsuspecting buyer. As with anything pre-owned, YMMV.

-pw


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Thanks for your answer,
I am definitely not a malicious troll, I am a 18 year old German student who tries to get into the photography business and loves canon and the equipment they make.

I started taking snaps at the age of 5 with an analog point and shoot, upgraded to a powershot a450, and in 2008 finally a DSLR a Sony alpha 300 with sigma 18-200 DC lens. With this camera I learned a lot and found out my passion is macro photography. So I got myself a sigma 50 2.8 macro in 2012 but I was not happy with the direction sony went with the slts and evfs. So i switched to canon because my powershot nerver let mit down and got myself a 5d2 with the 50 compact macro. Half a year later the 100L and another half year later the 70-200L II. I love my equipment and would never dare to do something maleficent to Canon wich provides me with firs class Equipment and never lets me down. (all of these three were bought new from a local store)

As stated in my post I assume that poor images result from a faulty user. So I was hoping that one of you might be able to tell me what I have to improve so I get the same stellar results from that lens as just about every canon professional photographer.

As to AFMA I know about that, but without a professional setup or software I don't think its possible to do that accurately and being a student I am currently not able to afford that. If that's wrong please tell me I read and joined this forum to learn.

I am very sorry if this didn't become clear in my first post
Henry


----------



## tomscott (Jun 6, 2014)

I agree with the above, although I just bought one and it has a manufacture defect with some sort of large particle inside I will be receiving a new copy. So I was pretty disappointed after forking out nearly £2k for it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21145.0

But in comparison to my 70-200mm L F2.8 MKI it is sharper and the IS is amazing huge difference. I have a plethora of L zoom glass (check my sig) and this is by far the best sharpest zoom L lens I have ever used. Infact it is stated as one of the, if not the sharpest zoom lenses ever made albeit the 24-70mm MKII.

Sorry to hear you are having issues. The images looks ok to me, the halo you speak of just looks like backlit bokeh, and the in focus areas look pretty sharp to me…

I would have a go at having you camera and lens calibrated or have a go yourself with Focal?

Because your using a 5DMKII are you having focusing issues? The centre point is pretty good but the surrounding points aren't really that accurate.


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Thank you for your reply,
Yes that lens is pretty sharp, after having it repaired  That's alright, just the "halo" bothers me as my other lenses don't do that or don't do that as strong as this. I will examine that further, thanks for the advice I really appreciate that


----------



## tomscott (Jun 6, 2014)

No problem

One thing I have noticed is that all the focus areas in your images are off centre, which makes me think you are using either the edge focus points on your 5DMKII and 40D or focus recompose. 

I have the 40D and it and the 5DMKII have the same 9 point auto focus system, which is not the best especially the outer points, but the centre isn't bad. Or are you using the centre point to focus recompose? Using focus recompose with a fast lens is very difficult because at say F2.8 the DOF is so narrow that even the smallest movement can create miss focus. It is even worse with faster glass with 1.2 primes etc. 

What I would try and do is shoot the same subject throughout the zoom range and at different apertures but use the centre point and centre the subject in the frame as a test and have a look. Back and front focus issues will be blatant, then you can start to narrow down the problem.

Also the halo effect is what is referred to as rim lighting created from lighting behind the subject. Different lighting causes differing sharpness, soft light on a dull day usually creates soft images and hard light gives more contrast therefore sharper images and you get that through front lit scenes where the sun is behind the photographers back, but the subject is facing into the light.

Try a test with a front lit subject as described above and then report your findings and we can help with any obvious issues with the lens.

Hope that helps

Tom


----------



## rambarra (Jun 6, 2014)

halo in pics, as other said, is generated by the light hitting the subject from behind. nothing to worry about.


In general if you are worried by lens sharpness and/or proper focus try shooting focusing charts instead of random subjects and invest in focal if you need AFMA


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Thank you for you replys,
I am so happy having this forum an people to answer my question, you are great!
I will perform the tests as Tom suggested this afternoon and report back  
Nevertheless if I remember correctly the 5d2 and 40D don't share the same af module as the 40d has 9 cross-type and the 5d2 only the center point as cross type. Its very noticeable that the 40d focuses better when using the outer points.

I don't use focus and recompose since i am aware of the different focal planes and had bad results using this technique. I would love to have something like Hasselblad true focus. I rather use the outer points and take more pictures hoping one of them to be in focus.

Regarding the Halo I am aware that this is caused by the back lite but its relatively strong with the 70-200 in comparison to the 100L Macro. See this Picture I took with the 100L in a back light situation https://www.flickr.com/photos/henryschulz/12254923205/

Thank you so much for your help! (no irony, I am serious, I really appreciate that)
Henry


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

rambarra said:


> halo in pics, as other said, is generated by the light hitting the subject from behind. nothing to worry about.
> 
> 
> In general if you are worried by lens sharpness and/or proper focus try shooting focusing charts instead of random subjects and invest in focal if you need AFMA



I am not worried about sharpness, in case of that i would have shot a newspaper  Currently I am very short of money but it seems like there is no way around focal so I will purchase that in the furture  Thanks for your advice!


----------



## Viggo (Jun 6, 2014)

I've owned 4 copies of this lens, and one was horrible, it was seriously soft. I adjusted alma at both the Wide end and Tele end to my 1dX, but since I had owned this lens before I knew that it wasn't supposed to be that useless. I sent it in and, long story short, they replaced to AF units, two IS units, realigned two glass elements at tested and it came back with slightly better AF, but the same delay in the IS (from I push until it's full stabilized) and still VERY soft. I sold it for cheap to a guy that I explained it all to, and when he got it he was over the moon, he thought it was great. 

I bought another, and it still had the same IS-issue as all other IS-lenses I have owned and used, including my current 200 f2.0, it takes a long time to fully stabilize and sometimes it only starts IS in one direction, either vertical or horizontal. I wait 4 seconds and only then is stabilized. So while people say it's instant, I refuse to believe I have at 15 IS lenses with the same issue, lol, they just are like that.

The poor 70-200 copy also had a strange feel to the zoom ring, like it was stiff from 70-100 and loose at 135 and then stiff at 200, a really bad copy all over. 

But the other three, apart from the IS, has been completely EPIC for sharpness all through the range, and would destroy pretty much any other lens for sharpness and IQ and AF. Only lens I have used that surpasses it is the 200 f2, and that's a no brainer.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2014)

It is obvious that you are not trolling. It is also obvious that this is a zoom lens. It is a great lens but not the best lens. I personally have a problem with its bokeh.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 6, 2014)

You must have received a very bad copy.
It's a tremendous lens. Super sharp and accurate.
At 18 comparing things to Hasselblads is interesting.
You seem to know something about photography and unless you are over complicating how you are taking photos I couldn't see how the problem is you.
A complete beginner would take great shots with a normal version of this lens.
Maybe you should buy a 5D Mark III to pair with it.
At 18 you'd probably be better off buying cheap equipment and making the most out of them.
You'd potentially learn more that way.
Jumping straight to a 70-200mm F2.8 II means maybe you won't every appreciate how good it is (if you had a good copy).
There is too much emphasis on buying gear (I include myself here ) and not enough on improving the actual photos we take. Lack of equipment makes you're innovative and better out technique.
I hope you get your version replaced with a proper version. Hopefully you'll then see what a great lens it is.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 6, 2014)

While it's not "the best" it comes REALLY close to being that when excluding the super tele's. At least for sharpness, distortion, CA color, contrast AF etc.

But here's a quick look at what it compares to against an 18-200 Sigma.

At 70mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=491&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

at 200mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=491&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## tomscott (Jun 6, 2014)

The link to the other image you have photographed is a controlled environment with no background and it was shot at F16 not F2.8, you don't get the same dreamy bokeh as F16 gives a lot more DOF.

The images you have posted with the Halo effect are all busy situations and you will find the 100L will produce a similar effect those images in the same situation. That images and what you originally posted are unfortunately not comparable.

Try comparing the both at the same focal length in the same situation.

By the way looking at your images on flickr, they are brilliant congrats, nice eye.


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Hector1970 said:


> You must have received a very bad copy.
> It's a tremendous lens. Super sharp and accurate.
> At 18 comparing things to Hasselblads is interesting.
> You seem to know something about photography and unless you are over complicating how you are taking photos I couldn't see how the problem is you.
> ...


Tank you for your reply  

Generally I have the same aproach focus on skills rather equipment but there is another one: buy cheap buy twice, so I decided that after jumping ship to canon I wont start with a superzoom but with a cheepisch prime which taught me a lot. I love that litte 50 compact macro! 

I don't put emphasis on buying gear I don't have that much money. I just want to buy quality gear which lasts as long as possible. I bought a cheap tripod, it broke. I bought a cheap laptop, it brok after 1.5 years. Lesson learned 

Currently I focus on understanding light and don't buy new gear since skills are more important. Currently my lite equipment has limitations, much limitations, but its useful and good fun to learn how to lite a subject with usual lightbulbs an one 430EX.

Henry


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 6, 2014)

The difficulty in focusing with the outer points in fair to poor light is a 5DII "feature" and not a lens issue. Wide open, I had to use the 5DII's center point only (frame more loosely) and crop in post. The 5DIII has a much better AF system. I used the lens on a 5DII for less than a year before upgrading to a 5DIII. 

And you should definitely AFMA your body/lens combination. You don't need a professional setup to do AFMA. Set up a high contrast target vertically and set a ruler slanted, stand at around 25x the focal length. Take a few pics of the target and note where the focus plane is on the ruler and adjust accordingly until the average is at 0 (at the target plane).

I don't have any problems using the lens near MFD. Because of it's relatively high max magnification spec, it's the lens I use for close stuff if I don't have a macro with me. It's not as good as the 100L, but it's better than other lenses.


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The link to the other image you have photographed is a controlled environment with no background and it was shot at F16 not F2.8, you don't get the same dreamy bokeh as F16 gives a lot more DOF.
> 
> The images you have posted with the Halo effect are all busy situations and you will find the 100L will produce a similar effect those images in the same situation. That images and what you originally posted are unfortunately not comparable.
> 
> ...



Hello,
I will try that as soon as I am home again where my 100L sits on its shelf 
Thank you for your compliment, really appreciate that 
Henry


----------



## tomscott (Jun 6, 2014)

Your certainly not wrong!

Wish I could have had access to the gear at 18 tho! At 26 now think my first L the 70-200mm I bought when I was 20 for my 40D as I started doing a few commercial projects at Uni.

I applaud you and your images show great talent and a great career ahead of you.


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Back again,
I did some test shots, unfortunately without a ruler since I was done by the time the advice arrived. Camera and lens on a tripod IS turned of, subject about 1.5 meters away, central af point. I uploaded them here: 

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=9A24089482BEBF7A!1556

I did not do that before so would you be so kind an judge whether afma is needed or not  All pictures are jpgs developed from raw in Lightroom 5.4 with sharpening set to 0. The last two are to illustrate the setup  

Thanks in advance


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> And you should definitely AFMA your body/lens combination. You don't need a professional setup to do AFMA. Set up a high contrast target vertically and set a ruler slanted, stand at around 25x the focal length. Take a few pics of the target and note where the focus plane is on the ruler and adjust accordingly until the average is at 0 (at the target plane).


Thank you for your Advice I will try that. I just don't get this 25x the focal length. So for 200mm I should be 50 Meters away from the target? Isn't that a bit far way? The only possible way to do that is outside but then tere is no controlled environment... Please enlighten me 
Henry


----------



## tomscott (Jun 6, 2014)

The pics look ok, at F2.8 and F4 it looks like it may be very very slightly out, but I can't tell if it is front or back focus because the subject you have chosen is flat. If you choose a subject that is slightly more 3 dimensional it will be more obvious. The box looks like it is not parallel with the lens the left side is closer to the camera and appears sharper which make me think its front focusing very slightly. It may need a little AFMA. But nothing to worry about really.

At F8 the results are absolutely perfect, but thats because the whole flat plane should be at that aperture.

Buy focal its fairly cheap and will help sort everything out for you.

Another test you could do is use the AF to focus then take a shot, then turn live view on and manual focus and check the difference, but easier with something with more depth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

HenryS said:


> That's alright, just the "halo" bothers me as my other lenses don't do that or don't do that as strong as this.



Do you have a filter on the lens? The 70-200 II does have some flare in backlit situations, and in my experience a filter (even a good one like a B+W Nano) can make that flare worse.



HenryS said:


> I just don't get this 25x the focal length. So for 200mm I should be 50 Meters away from the target? Isn't that a bit far way?



Your math is off by an order of magnitude. 25 x 200 mm = 5000 mm = 5 m (~16 feet).


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> HenryS said:
> 
> 
> > That's alright, just the "halo" bothers me as my other lenses don't do that or don't do that as strong as this.
> ...


Hello,
I'm honored to have an answer from you. Indeed I use filters on my lenses, on my 70-200 its a B+W 007 mrc nano. Next time I will take some pictures without it and see if it improves. Thank you very much for your advice.

And to the math... very embarrassing...

Tom, thank you for taking your time to help me I really appreciate that


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

HenryS said:


> Indeed I use filters on my lenses, on my 70-200 its a B+W 007 mrc nano. Next time I will take some pictures without it and see if it improves.


I think you'll notice a difference…I certainly do, and I do remove the filter when shooting backlit. One more note about the filter - if you're not already, I'd recommend using the XS-Pro mount for the 70-200 II. It's usually not an issue with telephoto lenses, but the regular (F-Pro) mount actually causes a little additional optical vignetting on the 70-200 II on a FF camera (I posted some images here).


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> HenryS said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed I use filters on my lenses, on my 70-200 its a B+W 007 mrc nano. Next time I will take some pictures without it and see if it improves.
> ...



You are right, did some quick test shots with a flash pointing directly into the camera trough a toy car and after removing the filter there was significantly less flare. Thank you very much for the advice. I hope I remember when shooting outdoor next time  To the filter, I already use the xs pro ones


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> While it's not "the best" it comes REALLY close to being that when excluding the super tele's. At least for sharpness, distortion, CA color, contrast AF etc.
> 
> But here's a quick look at what it compares to against an 18-200 Sigma.
> 
> ...




Pretty clear difference. Also NOTE: when you bring those tests up, the Canon is at f/2.8, and the other one is at f/5.0 on the wide end and f/6.3 at the telephoto end (because it can't open any wider). 
Most lenses are sharper stopped down a little to f/4 or f/5.6, and it is much harder to be sharp at f/2.8, but the Canon is nevertheless sharper wide open than the other lens, even if the other lens is at f/8.


----------



## GammyKnee (Jun 6, 2014)

Henry S - give the "dot-tune" method for setting AFMA values a try. I've worked through number of other techniques but "dot-tune" has become my go-to method for its speed and consistency, and the fact that I don't have to fire off a ton of shots as part of the process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zE50jCUPhM

You can also get a written description of the procedure if you Google for "dot-tune snapsy" (it resides in a different forum so I won't provide a direct link).

With a zoom remember to get values for both the short and long end, so you know if they're significantly different (you then have the option of going for an in-between value).


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 6, 2014)

I'm going to ignore the sigma issue for right now.

I have the 100L and the 70-200... and the macro lens is so incredibly sharp... it is exactly what I would hope for from a macro lens... the 70-200 by comparison is remarkably sharp for a zoom lens. It isn't fair to compare the two... especially at minimum focusing distance.

Where the 70-200 shines is in low light with great image stabilization and auto focus motor... 

The images are great... but they may not blow your mind at 100%.

As for the sigma.. who wants to shoot at f6? It's fine... but that's not the reason you get the 70-200.


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 6, 2014)

Sounds like there is a LOT wrong going on with your setup.

This is an exceptional lens, and its pretty bizarre to hear it being compared to that sigma.

Send it and the body together over to CPS and let them optimize for you. My 6d was barely usable until i did that before a very important trip.


----------



## alexturton (Jun 6, 2014)

pwp said:


> It's not without its stellar performance reputation and extremely consistent build quality that the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII has found it's way into just about every Canon professional's bag on the planet. From this point it's frequently stated as being a "most-used" lens. So what's happening for you?
> 
> There is a chance that it is a very rare poor copy, it's in serious need of AFMA adjustment, there is comprehensive user-error or the unlikelihood of you being a malicious troll. I doubt this is the case!
> 
> ...



You can afma easily using the af beep method. 

Tripod mount
Manual focus a subject with 10x live view. Preferably a subject some noticeable detail
Set focus to manual. 
Set af confirmation to beep. 
Adjust afma back and forth and press the shutter button on between each time, noting the point where the beeping stops. Then average the result. 

Eg if it stops beeping at -3 and 3 then your lens is spot on. 
If it stops beeping at -6 and -2 then set your afma to -4. 

Repeat a few times for greater accuracy. 

It is quick. Simple and free. I calibrate all my lenses this way. It works great for me. Better than using software


----------



## tculotta (Jun 6, 2014)

I never post anything here, but thought I would post that I have found my 70-200 L 2.8 II to be simply stunning. I would agree with those who postulate that there is something amiss with your copy, for what my opinion is worth.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Ted C


----------



## HenryS (Jun 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Where the 70-200 shines is in low light with great image stabilization and auto focus motor...
> 
> The images are great... but they may not blow your mind at 100%.
> 
> As for the sigma.. who wants to shoot at f6? It's fine... but that's not the reason you get the 70-200.


I did get the sigma as my first lens for my Sony DSLR, to have a superzoom to start with and to find out what I need. I just compared them because I had nothing else in that focal range to compare the 70-200L to and since I was pretty sure there was something wrong with it I found that a legitimate way to become certain. After that I sent it to cps and it cam back repaired as described earlier  
In total they are absolutely not comparable and the sigma is far inferior. I just made this comparison to describe the extremely poor performance the L delivered before being repaired
No need to worry


----------



## HenryS (Jul 21, 2014)

Hello,
it's me again. Following your advice I sent the lens to cps and they returned it "fixed", stating they calibrated IS and the optics. After using it for a while, I found that it improved somewhat, but the results I get are inconsistent. There is definitely some halo. Though sometimes it gives amazing results even at 200mm with 1/15s exposure handhold. I assume that is how the lens is supposed to perform.

This inconsistency makes the lens useless for me since most of my pictures make use of back light and I need my equipment to be reliable. So I am thinking about selling the lens. But I can't square selling a broken lens with my conscience.

So could you be so kind to take a last look at the pictures and tell me if the lens is OK or not. I don't want to scam somebody.

Pictures can be found here: https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=9A24089482BEBF7A!1695 (developed in Lightroom 5.4 with default settings)

How does your copy of the Lens perform in backlit situations? Following Neuro's advice I am using the lens without a filter now.

Thank you in advance!

Henry Schulz


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2014)

HenryS said:


> Thanks for your answer,
> I am definitely not a malicious troll, I am a 18 year old German student who tries to get into the photography business and loves canon and the equipment they make.
> 
> I started taking snaps at the age of 5 with an analog point and shoot, upgraded to a powershot a450, and in 2008 finally a DSLR a Sony alpha 300 with sigma 18-200 DC lens. With this camera I learned a lot and found out my passion is macro photography. So I got myself a sigma 50 2.8 macro in 2012 but I was not happy with the direction sony went with the slts and evfs. So i switched to canon because my powershot nerver let mit down and got myself a 5d2 with the 50 compact macro. Half a year later the 100L and another half year later the 70-200L II. I love my equipment and would never dare to do something maleficent to Canon wich provides me with firs class Equipment and never lets me down. (all of these three were bought new from a local store)
> ...



Henry, Lenses have a tolerance, but so do bodies. In the rare case that the tolerances add up, things can look bad even though each is fine.

Canon mounts and adjusts the lens on a reference body (A 5D MK II, if you told them) and verifies that it is working correctly. If you send in your camera, they do the same but with a reference lens.

You can, and should consider sending both the camera and lens for adjustment. They adjust them separately, then confirm proper sharpness when used together. I've had two different 70-200MK II lenses, and both were wonderful. I had 5 of the MK I version, and they were good but not great. I've also had three of the non IS versions, all were exceptional lenses.

If its not up to your expectations, and can't be fixed, I'd sell it, because you will never be happy with it. First though, have them do the camera and lens both.


----------



## skoobey (Jul 23, 2014)

I think I see your problem. 

You look at other people's images shoot with the same lens and wonder why to their's look so good, while yours are plain.

Well, it's called *retouching*. You need to develop the film, looking at a negative won't give you the final image.


----------



## HenryS (Jul 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> I think I see your problem.
> 
> You look at other people's images shoot with the same lens and wonder why to their's look so good, while yours are plain.
> 
> Well, it's called *retouching*. You need to develop the film, looking at a negative won't give you the final image.



Hello,
of course I am aware of post processing. That's why I upgraded dpp to Lightroom 5. Nevertheless one needs a good basis to start developing. Of course I can simply increase the sharpness in Lightroom. But it's not the sames as if it would be as sharp/clear in first place. Using my 5d2 at iso 6400 for low light concerts would be impossible without PP.

Nevertheless thank you for taking the time to spent time studying my problem and to prepare a response.
Henry


----------



## Skulker (Jul 23, 2014)

Hi Henry

You should be able to PP decent image files in DPP. Some prefer it to LR, but of course it is much much more than just a raw converter. 

Your images are interesting but not the sort of thing that is best for checking lens or camera. A vertical target and an inclined ruler will do fine for setting up auto focus. My favourite way is to photograph a single flower on the lawn looking down at about 45 degrees. You can soon see if the grass either side is in focus and so see if you are front or rear focusing. I have recan but never use it now.

If you check focus and set it right but still don't get images you think are sharp enough you should try a tripod and or a bean bag.

If you still can'tget Iimages you like talk to an experienced photographer. There are lots of us about. And most are quite willing to help a youngster understand and progress. Who knows they might even say the problem is your lens. That's not likely but it certainly could be.

I hope this helps your development as a photographer and gives you no offence. As you do seem rather dismissive of the help offered so far.


----------



## HenryS (Jul 23, 2014)

Skulker said:


> Hi Henry
> 
> You should be able to PP decent image files in DPP. Some prefer it to LR, but of course it is much much more than just a raw converter.
> 
> ...



Hello,
first of all I apologize for appearing dismissive, that's not what I intend to be. I assume that results from the struggle of getting taken serious as an 18 year old. Of course that's no excuse, I am deeply sorry. I value this forum and the people taking their time to help others. I learned a lot from reading this forum for about two years. Thank you!

To the lens, I found out that the lens backfocuses at both of my bodies, so I will take my camera and all my lenses to the local cps repair center and get the lens calibrated to the camera. That won't be coming cheap but I need a reliable setup since it's summertime the most profitable time for me. 

I will continuing to use this lens for the summer, despite being not fully satisfied. Most clients won't notice the difference anyway. For my personal stuff I will stick to my 100L and 50CompactMacro. After the summer I will reevaluate the situation as to keep the lens, make the move to primes, try to get a different copy etc.

I am very grateful for advice about how to use this lens properly as I think it's very likely that user errors are involved. I tried using this lens on a tripod successfully after figuring out that I have to turn the IS off manually since there is not tripod detection or it doesn't work or whatever. For long exposures of night architecture it's great. It's not so great as a macro lens used with the 25mm extension tube compared to the 100L and 50 CompactMacro. 

I still have to figure out how to use it properly as a portrait lens as I still fail to get the eyes in Focus at 100mm+ f/2.8 using the 5d2. Focus/Recompose doesn't work and the outer focus points are a bit hit and miss. Surprisingly the outer Points work well when using this lens and camera for table tennis shots. Strange. I hope somebody can explain that to me...

Please accept my apology.
Looking forward to further advice

Henry


----------



## Skulker (Jul 23, 2014)

Hi Again Henry.

If you hadn't mentioned your age we wouldn't know how old you are. Anyway it has nothing to do with the advice I have given, and I didn't notice anyone else taking any notice. Apart from you that is ;D 

But you do seem to be missing the point of my post. I was saying it is quite easy to do the AFMA with nothing other than the camera and the lens. You don't need any fancy software, and you don't need to send them back to Canon. Unless you run out of adjustment, and I have no idea how often that happens.

If you do it yourself you will learn about your camera and lens as well as saving some money. Give it a try its quite easy.


----------



## CanonOregon (Jul 24, 2014)

Sharpest zoom I've used. The 'color' of images is what catches my eye. Can you go back to the dealer and try another in the store? Also, try focusing on an object from an angle and see if it's a 'focus point' issue- is the area in front of or behind sharper than where you set the focus? It should be about the best lens you've ever used, love mine.


----------

