# Is this actually what I should expect from my Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II?



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 9, 2014)

EDITED FOR CLARITY 12/10/2014 00:33 EST.


Note (12/12/14), I've posted my own chart shots on pages 2 and 3 as per request, and have also posted additional images that may be relevant in answering this question.

The Digital Picture has crops of an ISO 12233 type chart shot via the 70-200/2.8 IS II. Link Here (pictures included inline below)

My chart shots look nowhere near that level of sharpness, especially at the corners. It does however look just like the chart shots taken by Martin Bailey and posted on his site (link here - images also posted inline with post below)

I'm just trying to figure out what I am supposed to be seeing, and whether my lens needs to go back to Canon again.

The Digital Picture unfortunately don't have a 5D3 body option, but I imagine my 5D3 should be as good as far as sharpness is concerned. The Martin Bailey pictures were shot on a 5D3 as far as I understand.

*Here are the images from The Digital Picture*

*@70mm*













*@200mm *














*Here are the pictures (or rather animated gifs) posted by Martin Bailey on his site:*





This is the part that's been bugging me as it looks perfect on the TDP chart shot, but this is much closer to what I'm seeing:





The Problem between the two: TheDigitalPicture shows me crisp clean corners at 70mm and 200mm, a tiny bit less so at 100mm and 115mm, but still WAY sharper than the gifs from the Martin Bailey Photography website, which show more or less what I'm seeing, which is very different from the crops TDP is displaying.

Which is closer to what I should be expecting?


----------



## Khalai (Dec 9, 2014)

This lens is (supposed to be) very sharp. I am more than happy with my copy, probably sharpest lens in my bag along with 100L. Truthfully, I've never tested it on charts or diagrams, but from real scenarios, I can easily count eyelashes or hair on taken photo and they are tack sharp. I would send it for calibration IMO.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2014)

I never shot at targets... but I would suspect the lens should be on par. Have you manually focused using live view and then used a shutter release. I wouldn't use auto focus because it might need micro adjusted... might...


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I never shot at targets... but I would suspect the lens should be on par. Have you manually focused using live view and then used a shutter release. I wouldn't use auto focus because it might need micro adjusted... might...



My understanding is that live view bypasses the auto focus issues. It uses contrast based auto focus via data from the actual image sensor, so the usual auto focus system - the one responsible for auto focus problems - is not in play at all. In other words, the autofocus light path and image light path are identical with live view, which should avoid the split light paths that is at the heart of the kinds of autofocus issues resolved via micro adjustment.

Btw - since coming back a second time it does need micro adjustment (it's back focusing a tiny bit). However, I can avoid that in live view.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

Khalai said:


> This lens is (supposed to be) very sharp. I am more than happy with my copy, probably sharpest lens in my bag along with 100L. Truthfully, I've never tested it on charts or diagrams, but from real scenarios, I can easily count eyelashes or hair on taken photo and they are tack sharp. I would send it for calibration IMO.



I'm not sure what you mean by sending it for calibration. Is that a CPS service? I'm not a member. However Canon claims that both times I sent it in they tested to verify proper function (or so they claim). At least the first time, as per their own admission the results could not have been right, as it was out of spec when it went in almost immediately after receiving it from Canon.

Sending it in again would seem to be no guarantee that it will come back in spec, and as I learned the first time -could do more harm than good.

That's why I'm doing some asking around and research before I decide whether or not to box it up yet again.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I never shot at targets... but I would suspect the lens should be on par. Have you manually focused using live view and then used a shutter release. I wouldn't use auto focus because it might need micro adjusted... might...
> ...



What I'm saying is that if you manually focus using live view... you can digitally zoom into the image either 5x or 10x... and then you can make sure the target is in focus. Switch off live view... or leave it on, I don't think it would matter, and then hit the shutter, either with a 2 or 10 second delay, or use a shutter release. 

So auto focus, as a variable is eliminated.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I digitally zoomed via live view to ensure that the center was in focus.

Really, the issue for me isn't the center.

The issue for me is this image, which is very similar to what I'm seeing:







Compare that to what The Digital Picture displays for the corner @70mm and @200mm:











In the very center - using Liveview - things are in focus and crisp, not quite like the center shot by The Digital Picture, but that may just be because they're using a photographic emulsion or photo printout, whereas my printout is on standard paper - but certainly the same as the center shot by Martin Bailey (@115mm):






I'm not opposed to trying again - but I'm pretty sure I'll get the same result. I've done the test several times just since receiving it. I can try to manual focus and see if that makes any difference.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 10, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



+1 I read the OP and this is my first thought. You should be using live view MF for your comparison.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is (supposed to be) very sharp. I am more than happy with my copy, probably sharpest lens in my bag along with 100L. Truthfully, I've never tested it on charts or diagrams, but from real scenarios, I can easily count eyelashes or hair on taken photo and they are tack sharp. I would send it for calibration IMO.
> ...



It looks like it just needs afma but short of that, it should come out tack sharp. Mine is so sharp that I can resolve dust on my lenscal scale.

If you end up sending it back to canon you should send it to a different facility. Which repair center did you send it to initially?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2014)

Had to look a bit to find an image of a basically flat subject at f/2.8 and low ISO. Shot is a wall in the Forbidden City, Beijing. Below are a couple of screenshots, the navigator pane shows the location of the 100% views, one near the center and the other at the extreme corner. Cobwebs in the extreme corner don't look significantly softer than those in the center.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



Fair enough - but none of the images are mine in this thread. My question thus far is whether the photos posted by The Digital Picture, or those posted by Martin Bailey are closer to what this lens ordinarily delivers?



East Wind Photography said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



None of the images are mine, are you referring to the ones by The Digital Picture, or by Martin Bailey?



neuroanatomist said:


> Had to look a bit to find an image of a basically flat subject at f/2.8 and low ISO. Shot is a wall in the Forbidden City, Beijing. Below are a couple of screenshots, the navigator pane shows the location of the 100% views, one near the center and the other at the extreme corner. Cobwebs in the extreme corner don't look significantly softer than those in the center.



The wall wasn't perfectly flat though right? It was a carving or sculpture? Where did you focus?


*Note to all: I've edited the original post as there seems to be some confusion regarding the fact that none of the images were taken by me and that I'm trying to ascertain which set of chart photos are more like what you see with your lens. My chart photos look just like the ones posted by Martin Bailey - but neither his nor mine look like the ones posted by The Digital Picture.*


----------



## sdfreeland (Dec 10, 2014)

"Fair enough - but none of the images are mine in this thread. My question thus far is whether the photos posted by The Digital Picture, or those posted by Martin Bailey are closer to what this lens ordinarily delivers?"

I have the 70-200mm II and the 5d3. My experience has been more like the Digital Picture. Images are almost as sharp as my old 135L F2 at 2.8. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a loose element with Martin Bailey's lens. Just look at what Roger Cicala says about the lens. He's used practically every 70-200mm out there from every brand.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> *Note to all: I've edited the original post as there seems to be some confusion regarding the fact that none of the images were taken by me and that I'm trying to ascertain which set of chart photos are more like what you see with your lens. My chart photos look just like the ones posted by Martin Bailey - but neither his nor mine look like the ones posted by The Digital Picture.*



Michael, my experience is also very similar to the one on The-Digital-Picture. Images from my 70-200/2.8 (II) are as sharp as the images delivered by my 100L at all appertures from wide open. If any images isn't in focus is my fault, not the lens.
I bought it used and never experienced any problem with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2014)

_The wall wasn't perfectly flat though right? It was a carving or sculpture? Where did you focus?_

Basically bas relief decorative tile. Focused on the central flower, DoF was likely ~2". Essentially, I'm not seeing a big IQ drop from center to corner.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Dec 10, 2014)

I used to do my own ISO chart shooting with new lenses, and mine also never looked as crisp as, e.g., those on TDP (I did that also with a 70-200 2.8 IS II that I got once, but I decided that it wasn't worth the extra weight and price over my 70-200 4.0 IS). 
What I can tell you is that getting these test chart shots right is really tricky. The chart has to be exactly parallel to the sensor plane, otherwise your corners will be not in focus, in particular when using fast and/or telephoto lenses the DOF is razor-thin. I tried the "mirror trick", which got me probably closest to "exactly parallel" without using an optical bench. For that, you need to put a small mirror in the center of your chart (exactly parallel to the chart itself). Now point your camera at the mirror... once you see the lens front element in the center of the mirror, it should be aligned correctly.
Second, as others have said, for consistent results you need to use live view AF as phase detection AF is usually not consistent enough (and might need some AFMA).

BTW: In the end, it was never my test chart shots that made me keep or return a lens.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Which repair center did you send it to initially?



Newport News, VA

Both times it went in it went there. I didn't pick it, Canon support told me to send it there. I've read mixed comments about it.



Grummbeerbauer said:


> I used to do my own ISO chart shooting with new lenses, and mine also never looked as crisp as, e.g., those on TDP (I did that also with a 70-200 2.8 IS II that I got once, but I decided that it wasn't worth the extra weight and price over my 70-200 4.0 IS).
> What I can tell you is that getting these test chart shots right is really tricky. The chart has to be exactly parallel to the sensor plane, otherwise your corners will be not in focus, in particular when using fast and/or telephoto lenses the DOF is razor-thin. *I tried the "mirror trick", which got me probably closest to "exactly parallel" without using an optical bench. For that, you need to put a small mirror in the center of your chart (exactly parallel to the chart itself). Now point your camera at the mirror... once you see the lens front element in the center of the mirror, it should be aligned correctly.*
> Second, as others have said, for consistent results you need to use live view AF as phase detection AF is usually not consistent enough (and might need some AFMA).
> 
> BTW: In the end, it was never my test chart shots that made me keep or return a lens.



I tried the mirror trick for several of the chart tests too.

I've tried multiple methods to try to eliminate the possibility of user error as best I could.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 10, 2014)

I'm curious why you haven't attached any of your own images.
I know you're saying Martin Bailey's images are identical, but for the sake of completeness I'd expect to see your shots as well.


----------



## Policar (Dec 10, 2014)

I never found my old 70-200mm f2.8 L to match the test charts, so I traded up to a brand new 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, but it's... not that much better. It is better wide open, less "weird," and possessing less character, but it's not in the same category as the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for tack-sharpness wide open...

It does seem to have good IS (for stills, not video as much) and great autofocus and build quality (so the the original) so I can't say it's a bad lens at all. The IS alone really made the difference, at least for stills, but it's no "miracle" lens as the 200mm f2 and Otus and recent Sigma Art lenses appear to be.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I'm curious why you haven't attached any of your own images.
> I know you're saying Martin Bailey's images are identical, but for the sake of completeness I'd expect to see your shots as well.



It's all part of my evil master plan... bwahahahahahahahaha.

Actually, it's just that I didn't see a point given that somebody else already had images using the exact same chart (printed similarly using the same vector graphic), camera, and lens combo. That.. plus maybe a little bit of laziness.

Here is a non chart image that I just took to examine this from a non-chart standpoint. It's just of a knock-down textured wall at 200mm.

I'll post a chart too at 200mm if you'd like. I don't have any at 70mm in LR right now for some reason. I might have deleted them (or maybe I just never imported them - not sure). I have a bunch at 200mm with various apertures, but I'm not sure where the other focal lengths are. Probably still on a CF card.

I'll also post the textured wall at 70mm in a minute.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

ISO 12233 Chart - 200mm @ f/2.8


----------



## xps (Dec 10, 2014)

My, in summer 2014 bought 70-200 II had an similar issue. Using the AF ended in unsharp pictures. Even when I used live view the picture got just minimal sharper. Sending the lens 3 times to Canon CPS (and writing an "sharp" letter, that the IQ is not acceptable as it is worser than on my old 70-200L2.8, they exchanged something inside the lens, not only adjusting it).
Now it is worth the money I bought and it is visibly better than my old lens....


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

xps said:


> My, in summer 2014 bought 70-200 II had an similar issue. Using the AF ended in unsharp pictures. Even when I used live view the picture got just minimal sharper. Sending the lens 3 times to Canon CPS (and writing an "sharp" letter, that the IQ is not acceptable as it is worser than on my old 70-200L2.8, they exchanged something inside the lens, not only adjusting it).
> Now it is worth the money I bought and it is visibly better than my old lens....



Interesting. You had to send it in 3 times. I was thinking that I'd be one of the only people to ever have to do something like that which was why I've been hoping that maybe I'm wrong and the lens is fine.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

Here is the wall again (it's technically a decorative bevel between the ceiling and the regular wall) - not the best example, especially with the lighting being not consistent over the entire image, but it does show the dropoff in IQ as you move away from the center towards the corners.

This post will be 70mm, and the next 2 will be at 102mm and 145mm (which were where the markings on the lens said 102 and 135 - not sure if that's a problem or not - the marking for 135 being off by 10mm).

I just took these.

70mm @ f/2.8


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

102mm @ f/2.8


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

145mm (the 135mm mark) @ f/2.8


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

I'll try to look for the chart photos of 70mm, 100mm, and 135mm, after I get some sleep.


----------



## xps (Dec 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > My, in summer 2014 bought 70-200 II had an similar issue. Using the AF ended in unsharp pictures. Even when I used live view the picture got just minimal sharper. Sending the lens 3 times to Canon CPS (and writing an "sharp" letter, that the IQ is not acceptable as it is worser than on my old 70-200L2.8, they exchanged something inside the lens, not only adjusting it).
> ...



My personal opinion: Here in Germany, different companies are offering service for Canon. It ist sometimes varying, how you get satisfied by the company, your lens has been sent to.
The third time I sent it to another company, 500 miles away to Berlin /tipp from marsu) and there they exchanged the not satisfying part inside the lens. 
But there they told me, that there is still (varying on the L model) an sometimes big bandwith of quality. And that an customer can not be sure that the lens is on the same quality as the lenses magazines get for testing. Because they are presorted and optimized so that the test gets an good score....


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

xps said:


> And that an customer can not be sure that the lens is on the same quality as the lenses magazines get for testing. Because they are presorted and optimized so that the test gets an good score....



Yes, this is really an annoying fact. Unless the site explicitly states that they get their lenses in a shop like the rest of us, they are probably sent "golden samples" by the manufacturer. It's worst with reviews on Youtube, the people get an inexpensive item like a flash for free and write an enthusiastic review about it: "viral marketing".

The only way to get around it is to have a nice brick and mortar shop and test a couple of lenses on site before buying, or simply send back the lens until you get a good one. Problem is that with mail-ordering just one, you have no comparison basis, so in fact you'd have to order at least two lenses and send back one in any case.



Policar said:


> I never found my old 70-200mm f2.8 L to match the test charts, so I traded up to a brand new 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, but it's... not that much better. It is better wide open, less "weird," and possessing less character, but it's not in the same category as the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for tack-sharpness wide open...



Fortunately in real life, it mostly makes no difference because there are so many other sources of less than optimal iq. The one thing that is really to be avoided is decentering, but as far as sharpness goes the 70-200L is just another mass market item, even if it has a red ring painted on it.

Look at this link concerning the variation of the 24-70L mk1 vs mk2, good samples of the old and crappy version are up on par with mediocre samples of the new dream lens: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

Couldn't sleep. That's nothing new though - I don't want you all to think it's related to this. I've been an insomniac since I could crawl practically.

Marsu - thanks for posting that. I'd read it before, but the more people are aware of that, the better IMO. Unfortunately, having never owned a 24-70 f/2.8 I, I'll have no idea how the 24-70 f/2.8 II or 24-70 f/2.8 IS (fingers crossed that this eventually happens) stacks up.

I looked through all of my CF cards. I think I must have formatted the card(s) that had the most recent chart shots thinking I'd imported the photos into LR.

I do have some charts from before sending it in to Canon the second time (when they found a "misaligned" element, if I recall the language they used). 90mm @f/2.8 and f/5.6 125mm at the same two f-stops, and 200mm at the same two f-stops. They were the images I sent to Canon on a CD-ROM for the second repair.

I doubt you guys would want to see those though, since they're not current. If you want them though, just ask - I'm happy to post them if they'd help shed light on the situation.

Assuming the more recent chart photos don't pop up somewhere I haven't thought to look yet, I'll just take another set today.

EDIT: I've redone the chart shots. I'll post them once I've gotten a chance to go through them all and can generate jpgs that are under 5MB each.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

70mm @ f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

100mm @ f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

135 mark on the lens (technically it's 125mm here) @ f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

200mm @ f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Couldn't sleep. That's nothing new though - I don't want you all to think it's related to this.



I understand your predicament, but if you're finished shooting test charts, don't let yourself be detained and get out, shooing something alive ... 

... crawling around the frozen scenery during a full moon night, shooting wildlife will help you worry less about pixel sharpness and make you sleep when you return home, you've got my word on that 






Note: Sorry to spam the place with horsie shots, it just seemed appropriate here somehow :-o


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

Nice shot. Actually, since I couldn't sleep, I took advantage of sunrise sweet light as the sun was just coming up. Not with this lens though - but that was just because I wanted something wider.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Dec 11, 2014)

I had a look at your test shots for 70, 135 and 200mm. What I believe I am seeing is that there is always one corner (or one side) that is definitely softer than the others (lower right mostly, upper right @200mm) but not catastrophically so in each case. This corner then remains visibly worse at f4 and eventually sharpens up at f5.6.
That could indicate some decentering, but could also still be a problem with the test setup. What also made me wonder is the distortion @200mm... the lower border of the test chart shows more pincussion distortion than the other, although the chart seems to be a bit shifted to the top. But then, shouldn't the _upper _border (being closer to the edge of the frame) show _more _pincussion distortion? 
Point is: your setup isn't perfect (and I doubt it can be with conventional means). Maybe you should check for decentering with a different approach that is less sensitive to test setup, focus issues and shallow DOF: Go outside on a clear day with good light, find far away target (i.e. far away for infinity focus) with good contrast (lone tree in the distance, a tower, tall building, church etc.). Put that into the center of the frame and assure perfect focus (lifeview MF or AF), take test shots at relevant apertures, maybe a few shots for each aperture so that you can rule out camera shake (or better yet, use a tripod ;-)). Now, without changing focus, reframe to put the "test object" in one frame corner, again doing test shots for each aperture. Repeat that for all four corners, making sure that in each shot the test object is roughly the same distance from the image corner.
That should give you five sets of images, one for the center, one for each corner, at each aperture. If you made several shots for each area and aperture, pick the best. Now create a "collage" of the shots of each aperture so that you can visually compare them on one image. The corner shots will likely be darker and a tad less sharp than the center shot, but they should all be roughly equal. If they are not, this is likely decentering.

I couldn't find a good site explaining the procedure in English, but I found this page in German... I think the pictures are pretty self-explantory:
http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/test/dezentrierung/dezentrierung.html


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 11, 2014)

Grummbeerbauer said:


> I had a look at your test shots for 70, 135 and 200mm. What I believe I am seeing is that there is always one corner (or one side) that is definitely softer than the others (lower right mostly, upper right @200mm) but not catastrophically so in each case. This corner then remains visibly worse at f4 and eventually sharpens up at f5.6.
> That could indicate some decentering, but could also still be a problem with the test setup. What also made me wonder is the distortion @200mm... the lower border of the test chart shows more pincussion distortion than the other, although the chart seems to be a bit shifted to the top. But then, shouldn't the _upper _border (being closer to the edge of the frame) show _more _pincussion distortion?
> Point is: your setup isn't perfect (and I doubt it can be with conventional means). Maybe you should check for decentering with a different approach that is less sensitive to test setup, focus issues and shallow DOF: Go outside on a clear day with good light, find far away target (i.e. far away for infinity focus) with good contrast (lone tree in the distance, a tower, tall building, church etc.). Put that into the center of the frame and assure perfect focus (lifeview MF or AF), take test shots at relevant apertures, maybe a few shots for each aperture so that you can rule out camera shake (or better yet, use a tripod ;-)). Now, without changing focus, reframe to put the "test object" in one frame corner, again doing test shots for each aperture. Repeat that for all four corners, making sure that in each shot the test object is roughly the same distance from the image corner.
> That should give you five sets of images, one for the center, one for each corner, at each aperture. If you made several shots for each area and aperture, pick the best. Now create a "collage" of the shots of each aperture so that you can visually compare them on one image. The corner shots will likely be darker and a tad less sharp than the center shot, but they should all be roughly equal. If they are not, this is likely decentering.
> ...



I'll try that. In the meantime, here is the other 200mm chart I posted (@f/2.8), this one with all four borders to show distortion. This was set up days before separately. It would be strange if two different set ups showed the same issue due to set up issues.

From: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24063.msg472003#msg472003





Do you see the same issue? It's helpful to have somebody else look at these shots with a fresh perspective and fresh eyes.

Btw- the corners were why I sent it in the last time and they did find a "misaligned" element. I should probably make some f/2.8 shot corner crops and put them together so that it's easier to compare them. I'm having trouble seeing which corner is the softest at the moment. Clearly though, not a single corner is as sharp as the corner shots at 70mm and 200mm by The Digital Picture on page one of this thread (and I linked to the page where you can see other focal lengths and apertures). I'm not sure if they sharpened their images (I didn't), or if their lens was better performing than mine.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 12, 2014)

I took a series of photos late yesterday afternoon which turned out to not have optimal lighting for seeing the difference between corners. I tried again a few minutes ago, but the subject wasn't optimal.

It appears this needs to be done around noon with a subject that has the sky as its background, just like the photos on that website.

I'll have to hunt a bit around for a good subject.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 13, 2014)

Here is 70mm @ f/2.8 and 200mm @ f/2.8 at ISO 100 (with the shutter speed kept constant for all 5 images) - using the proposed alternative test method. The subject was a water tower which had wording on it "Visit Hollywood Florida". The background is mostly the sky.

Some interesting behavior exhibited itself during this test. I only focused once for both of these collages - on the center image. I then placed the tower in the four corners, and used a remote to trigger the shutter. For these two collages, I did not alter anything after focusing - yet somehow after moving the lens around the four corners and triggering the shutter for each, when I returned to the center in the end, it was completely out of focus. I used a tripod, so the camera came back to the same spot it was in to begin with at the end - yet it was out of focus? I don't understand that. Could an element be loose? I did not touch the focus ring at any time, nor did I touch the AF-On button after initially focusing (and I verified focus with 10x magnification in LiveView). Focus was at infinity. I noticed that the focus ring can be turned a bit more after infinity focus is reached. I don't know why or if that's normal. It's something I never paid attention to before, so it could just be hyper-vigilance.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't sleep. That's nothing new though - I don't want you all to think it's related to this.
> ...



+1


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 13, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



Ordinarily I don't pixel peep. This is pretty much a first for me.

The photos at infinity focus seem to confirm that there's a problem. Even just the fact that it isn't holding its focus when moved (even though it remained at infinity focus and was back at the same position that it was focused from ) is concerning. It makes me wonder if something is not only decentered, but loose.


----------

