joel_p Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>Hi,<br> I recently made the switch from my 70-200mm 2.8L to the IS Mark II version. Primary reason was IS but also the supposed improvements at 200mm wide open. I tested both lenses (tripod, timer) and found out to my dissapointment that while the II was better at 100mm (wide open and at f4.0), it was somewhat inferior wide open at 200mm (in both the center and corners). <br> Should I have my new lens checked by Canon or are the differences between these lenses just overhyped? (dpreview test results appear to suggest a big difference)<br> Cheers,<br> joel</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>Exchange it for another copy. Barring that, have it realibrated under warranty. Almost all lenses can be recalibrated. I had a used EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM recalibrated at a nominal cost and the result was an improvement.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_p Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>Thanks Peter, unfor I can't really exchange it as I bought it in the US and I live in Europe. Recalibration is something I am considering, although my US/Can warranty won't cover that. How much did it cost to calibrate your 85mm?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>It was around $100 CAN with a 5 day turnaround at an authorized Canon repair centre. Well worth the peace of mind.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_markanich Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>Quick guess: make sure IS is turned OFF when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I know this sounds counter intuitive but give it a try. There is also an inexpensive gizmo called "Focus Fix" ($59US) available from datacolor.com. It's a calibration target that helps identify front/back focusing problems and help you fix them if your camera has a micro calibration adjustment feature.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>It's more likely to be front/back focus. Have you tried your test with manual focus/live view? Does your body have micro adjustment? I'd try those options before sending it off.</p> <p>Yes, it should be sharper than your old 70-200.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_p Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>thanks John/Sheldon. I did have IS off. I will try test w manual focus, and I shoot with a 5DII - I will try the microadjust feature......</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_p Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 <p>Microadjust didn't improve the situation. Manual/live view focussing did....but I have a feeling this was more related to the mirror lockup than a lens problem. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_savage Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I have done extensive testing with the new 70-200 mkII working with precise lens charts and real world testing. Initially my copy had very slight symmetry issue at 200mm with the right side exhibiting a bit of Chromatic Abberation and minor softness. It was apparent when doing a very close test at three meters on lens charts. I sent it to Canon for Calibration, they adjusted lens elements and auto focus. After receiving lens back, I have slight improvement only when adjusting to - 10 on micro adjustment. When shooting real world, issues with symmetry not observable. I ran exact comparison tests between the non-IS and the mkII and at 200mm, the mkII is slightly sharper, especially around edges, this was at a great distance. However, the non-IS still exhibits very good quality. My conclusion with the mkII is the same as Dpreview's, slight symmetry issue, which of course is sporadic with production and at close focusing distances the mkII has a bit poorer performance than expected. With all that, the mkII still seems an improvement over the non-is and I am satisfied with results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randallfarhy Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 <p>Took delivery of a MkII Thursday ahead of a busy weekend of shooting (Thank you B&H). After a handful of shots both static and action, it seemed to perform as advertised so decided to go with it. (I'm not one to do extensive bench testing unless something seems amiss on basic tripod mounted shots at different apertures and distances, or a consistent issue materializes.) This is a 100% crop of moving subject, using a UV filter to prevent dust from accumulating on the front element. The lens did have some fine dust on it at the time of this shot. (It's a given in this environment). I'm quite happy with the lens' performance. I'm thinking what you are experiencing is a copy to copy issue, or as you later mentioned perhaps something to do with mirror lock-up.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 <p>The fact that the MkII is not dramatically better than the non IS does not surprise me. When I bought my non IS F2.8 I did so because I was not impressed with the performance of the MkI IS - especially at the long end (I tested two Mk I lenses at that time). The fact that the Mk II is better than the non IS means that it is an improvement over the Mk I. Most reviews focus on this test not testing against the non IS lens. My own strategy has been to use the non IS lens when I need F2.8 and I have the F4 IS when I need less weight or IS. I rarely find myself in a situation where I need F2.8 and IS as I do not use this lens for portrait work etc... so I need F2.8 for low light / fast shutter speeds not shallow DOF. I you do need IS and F2.8 or just prefer a single lens than the Mk II is the best option.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_p Posted May 2, 2011 Author Share Posted May 2, 2011 <p>Jason, your experience (of one side exhibiting softness) is indeed what I am finding. Pity that the lens calibration didn't really solve it. Randall, good shot. I did find that at 200mm, the IS makes a huge difference even at shutter speeds as high as 1/250th. So I am not giving up my Mark II. It's just that I expected the difference to be bigger than it is. Philip, good strategy, but only for those that can afford to have both versions. I tried the f4 IS lens as well. Man, that thing is light compared to the 2.8!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randallfarhy Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 <p>Joel, if one side is showing softer on the edges, then it sounds like something Canon should resolve. (Assuming the tests were shot without a UV/Haze filter and that the front/rear elements were free of smudges etc).</p> <p> Along with the lens, send in some evidence (test images on a cheap card with an index card describing the area at issue with each image, or prints with detailed descriptions on the back re: capture data). Giving the techs something to work with will help them to better understand what you're experiencing.</p> <p>Before sending it out, I'd test another lens, just to ensure that you're not experiencing a problem with sensor or mounting face alignment on the body. (Not likely from what you've described, but it doesn't hurt and may save some aggravation)-</p> <p>Best of luck,</p> <p>Randall</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Joel. I bought my non IS F2.8 lens many years ago and carried up mountains for about 5 years before I added the F4 IS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now